Gay Patriot Header Image

Massachusetts, Mitt Romney & Marriage

Gay activists appear to be up in arms with outgoing Massachusetts Republican Governor — and likely 2008 GOP presidential candidate — Mitt Romney for requesting that the the state’s Supreme Judicial Court place an initiative on the Bay State’s ballot banning gay marriage and so overturning its Goodrich ruling mandating that the state recognize gay marriage.

Yesterday, that court held that “while state lawmakers have a constitutional duty to vote on a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, the justices could not order the Legislature to vote.” Lee Swislow, executive executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, like many gay leaders and activists hopes the legislature won’t respond to the court’s invitation as she wants to keep the issue off the state ballot. Despite the hopes of these activists, the Massachusetts legislature may take up the issue next “Tuesday, the last day day of its current session.

Unlike Ms. Swislow and gay leaders, I hope the legislature puts this important issue on the ballot. By keeping it off the ballot, Massachusetts legislators would do a tremendous disservice to the cause of gay marriage. Since most polls show a majority of voters in the Bay State favor gay marriage, the initiative stands a good chance of passing. If it does pass, it would be the first time citizens in a state voted to approve gay marriage. (Last month, Arizona voters were merely the first to defeat a proposal which would have prevented state recognition of same-sex marriage and other similar unions.)

A victory in one state, even a deep blue one, would provide great momentum for the cause of gay marriage. Not only that, the initiative process itself would provide an important forum for debate on gay marriage. I believe very strongly that we need this debate, a chance for marriage advocates to put forward sound arguments in favor of changing this ancient institution to include same-sex unions.

Governor Romney may be appealing to social conservatives who vote in GOP primaries in pushing for such a referendum, but he may well serve to undermine the very cause these conservatives advocate — preventing states from recognizing same-sex unions.

Yet, gay leaders remain focused on keeping the issue off the ballot, even in a state favorably disposed to gay marriage. I remain puzzled at their reluctance to discuss this issue which is, I believe, of paramount importance to our community.

Share

28 Comments

  1. Of course the gay leftists of Massachusetts want it off the ballot — for the same reason that California’s gay leftists keep trying to force gay marriage through the Assembly rather than taking the logical step of raising a voter referendum to repeal Proposition 22.

    It’s called “gerrymandering”.

    When it comes to legislative elections, unfortunately, voters have to choose the whole package; they may have absolutely loathed the fact that their legislator was in the pocket of gays who mocked their religion and demanded that their wishes be ignored, but it was either take that or vote for the other candidate, and it simply may not have been worth it to them.

    With a statewide referendum, all that is gone. No Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-war, pro- or anti-religion, whatever; just a simple question, “Do you want gay marriage, or do you not want gay marriage?”

    And gay leftists know the answer is no.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - December 28, 2006

  2. NDT, you might want to look up the word “Gerrymandering”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

    But then again, you have never let ignorance get in the way of your little tantrums. I swear, you are so repetitive . Yes, yes, yes; we get your message. The Democrats, AKA “Leftist Gays” are responsible for every thing that has ever gone wrong in the world since the beginning of time itself.

    You should turn down the volume on the 8-track machine that takes the place of your brain, you have it stuck on “Screech”.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — December 28, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - December 28, 2006

  3. #2. LOL!! That’s a great new nickname: Screech!! Fantastic.

    Comment by sean — December 29, 2006 @ 6:13 am - December 29, 2006

  4. Oh Patrick, that WAS yummy — and so deserving for someone who consistently cheers every possibility of potential defeat of gay progress whereever it appears likely.

    Comment by Rheadher — December 29, 2006 @ 8:57 am - December 29, 2006

  5. Dan, I agree with you that it would benefit the gay community in Massachusetts if gay marriage was voted on and approved. But I can also understand the reluctance of those who oppose putting it on the ballot. It’s great that it appears that a majority of Massachusetts voters would approve it, but if voted on, there is always a chance it may lose. So it would be possible that rights would be taken away because 50.1% of the people oppose gay marriage.

    Of course, it’s clear what Romney’s motivation is. He is trying to find any way he can to get gay marriage to end in Massachusetts. He’s had this obsession ever since the court decision. And I doubt his sincerity that the issue really should be decided by the people. I would believe him if he said something like, “I honestly believe that marriage should be decided by the people. And to prove that I am not being selfish and obsessive, I will first let the people of Massachusetts decide whether I should remain in my marriage.”

    Comment by Pat — December 29, 2006 @ 9:55 am - December 29, 2006

  6. Oh really, Gryph?

    From your own source:

    Gerrymandering is a controversial form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage.

    And what does it do?

    Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in the favor of ruling incumbents or a specific political party.

    My point is this; leftist gays are using the fact that Massachusetts, which is so absurdly gerrymandered that, as Common Cause points out, seven out of ten House members didn’t even face challenges in the past election, and no incumbent state Senator was defeated in the past four consecutive election cycles, is a state in which the voters are effectively prevented from their voices being heard in the Legislature.

    The fact that you support that, Gryph, and that leftist gays like you support that, shows what hypocrites you are. You actively work to deny people the right to vote on issues that affect them — a right guaranteed them by our Constitution — because you are afraid of the outcome.

    And, given that leftists like you, Readher, and sean said this was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, I fail to see your problem with voting on amendments.

    The sole reason voters hate and distrust gays is because gay leftists like you, Gryph, continually make it obvious that you are not interested in “equality”; you’re interested in denying them their rights and, as the example of leftist Democrat Bonnie Bleskachek shows, discriminating against them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - December 29, 2006

  7. And I doubt his sincerity that the issue really should be decided by the people. I would believe him if he said something like, “I honestly believe that marriage should be decided by the people. And to prove that I am not being selfish and obsessive, I will first let the people of Massachusetts decide whether I should remain in my marriage.”

    Sure. Go ahead, Pat, and start a petition to ask for a popular vote to repeal heterosexual marriage. In fact, I’d even join you, just for equality’s sake.

    Then, when it loses 97 – 3, will you let the petition on gay marriage go through?

    The simple fact of the matter is that you think the voters should be denied the right to vote on an issue that affects them by legislative manipulation and the intransigence of an unelected judiciary which demands that the Legislature pass the laws it wants because the Constitution says so, but suddenly insists it has no legal right to compel the Legislature to follow the Constitution….all because you know you’re going to lose.

    People know that the same leftist gays who are whining how unfair it is to ban gay marriage had no problem with doing so — and coughing up millions of dollars in the process — when John Kerry advocated it. They know leftist gays will support bans on gay marriage if it helps Democrats; therefore, it seems obvious that gays don’t need or care one whit about marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - December 29, 2006

  8. What if Kansas had a statewide referendum to approve Brown v. Board of Education?
    They would have rejected it.
    Perhaps the EvilCommunistFascistsGayLeft feel their unalienable rights such as marriage should not be decided through a ballot initiative

    Further, regarding the thoughts on the disenfranchised conservative electorate of MA:
    Who are their two senators?
    Didn’t their republican Gov had to say he was pro gay marriage to get elected?
    They got it going on over there….

    Comment by keogh — December 29, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - December 29, 2006

  9. What in the world is wrong with you NDT? Why would any citizen of any any state willingly give up a right? In the business world, you never give up an edge. And don’t tell me “it should be up to the voters BS”. That’s a bunch of crap and you know it.

    Comment by David — December 29, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - December 29, 2006

  10. What if Kansas had a statewide referendum to approve Brown v. Board of Education?
    They would have rejected it.

    Actually, keogh, they could have with perfect right done so (at least when the case was made at the state level). Furthermore, the voters could have with perfect right raised a Federal constitutional amendment to specifically write segregation of education into the Federal Constitution.

    However, the simple fact is that they didn’t.

    Perhaps the EvilCommunistFascistsGayLeft feel their unalienable rights such as marriage should not be decided through a ballot initiative.

    First, marriage is not an “inalienable right”. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is marriage stated, recognized, or protected as such; indeed, if it were, states would have no legal grounds to deny pedophiles, bestialists, or polygamists their “inalienable right” to marry.

    Second, gay leftists like yourself called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democratic politicians like John Kerry supported stripping gays of rights via ballot initiatives — even in Massachusetts.

    What in the world is wrong with you NDT? Why would any citizen of any any state willingly give up a right?

    Because your maneuvers and ledgermain are depriving numerous other people of their right to amend their own Constitution and vote on things that affect them.

    That IS an inalienable right. And it demonstrates conclusively that gay leftists spit on the Constitution, inasmuch as they support denying voters the CLEAR, OUTLINED right to vote on and amend their constitutions in favor of a “right” which is NOWHERE established in the Constitution and in fact is legitimately denied on a regular basis to NON-gay people.

    In the business world, you never give up an edge.

    Even if it’s illegal?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - December 29, 2006

  11. And then, once more to this:

    What in the world is wrong with you NDT? Why would any citizen of any any state willingly give up a right?

    Do you know how much that argument looks like that made by white segregationists arguing why it was OK to deprive black Americans of the right to vote?

    Be honest, Dave, and admit this clearly: “The right of gays to marry overturns and nullifies the Constitutionally-established and protected right of American citizens to vote on and amend their own Constitutions.”

    I disagree emphatically. No gay right is worth giving up that cornerstone of our democracy. NONE.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - December 29, 2006

  12. NDT’s really got his 8-Track jammed into overdrive. Screeeeeeech!

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - December 29, 2006

  13. “Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is marriage stated, recognized, or protected as such; indeed, if it were, states would have no legal grounds to deny pedophiles, bestialists, or polygamists their “inalienable right” to marry.”

    1st – Being gay is not the same as being a pedophiles, bestialists and polygamists.
    What crap and that bull shit argument has been disprove time and time again.
    Jeez…
    2nd –
    Read Bill of Rights #9
    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
    In english you might understand:
    It means there are other rights that are not stated in the constitution.

    Like marriage

    Happy New Year

    Comment by keogh — December 29, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - December 29, 2006

  14. Patrick, you’ve turned him/her into the whirling dervish of West Wingnutia.

    Comment by Rheadher — December 29, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - December 29, 2006

  15. It means there are other rights that are not stated in the constitution.

    Such as the right of voters to determine what may and may not constitute marriage.

    You claimed that the Constitution specifically denied voters that right, keogh, and insisted that it said that marriage was an “inalienable right” — which means that government has no right to deny it to anyone under any circumstances.

    Therefore, leftist keogh, since you then claim that the government has no right to deny anyone marriage under any circumstances, then you must, in order to be intellectually consistent, support the “right” of bestialists, pedophiles, and polygamists to marry without restrictions.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you and your fellow gay leftists are cowards who are afraid of voters and thus seek to strip them of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote and to amend their own constitutions. Unfortunately, it’s not working — and gays like myself who value our Constitution and our democracy more than our sex lives are more than willing to point out people like you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - December 29, 2006

  16. Sure. Go ahead, Pat, and start a petition to ask for a popular vote to repeal heterosexual marriage. In fact, I’d even join you, just for equality’s sake.

    Actually, NDT, I was only advocating that Mitt Romney ask the voters if he and he alone should have the right to marry. Why not let the voters decide? Is he afraid that he might lose, and have to end his marriage? I’m not a Massachusetts citizen. I’m suggesting that Romney petition it.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you think the voters should be denied the right to vote on an issue that affects them by legislative manipulation and the intransigence of an unelected judiciary which demands that the Legislature pass the laws it wants because the Constitution says so, but suddenly insists it has no legal right to compel the Legislature to follow the Constitution….all because you know you’re going to lose.

    That’s not quite what I was saying. First, I completely understand ANYONE wanting to protect their rights. So the activists are going to do whatever they can to get it done. As for Romney, he is certainly entitled to do what he thinks is right. I just think that he is an obsessive bigot for continuing to push this. His feigned concern for the people of Massachusetts is simply because this is his only chance to get what he wants. I sincerely doubt it’s because he has a higher regard for the rule of law than people wanting to keep their rights. My understanding is that he has said that he would do anything within the law to get rid of gay marriage. Then, fine, let him try. And if he needs help, perhaps he can ask Jesse Helms former campaign assistant for assistance. I don’t know what the polls are, but it looks like yours and Dan’s assessment are different.

    I’ll leave it up to the voters and government of Massachusetts to sort out the issue. If there are at least 50% obsessive, bigoted voters of Massachusetts that want to get rid of gay marriage, then so be it.

    As for your claim of gerrymandering of Massachusetts’ state legislative districts (I know nothing about it), what is your solution to correct this perceived injustice?

    Comment by Pat — December 29, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - December 29, 2006

  17. Actually, NDT, I was only advocating that Mitt Romney ask the voters if he and he alone should have the right to marry. Why not let the voters decide? Is he afraid that he might lose, and have to end his marriage? I’m not a Massachusetts citizen. I’m suggesting that Romney petition it.

    Because, Pat, you are demanding that Mitt Romney ask for a petition that affects him only on a matter which, over the course of hundreds of years of state legislation and voter referendum, has been positively established; namely, he is allowed to marry.

    And why? Because he is advocating that voters should be allowed to vote, as is their Constitutional right, on an issue that has been imposed upon them by the actions of an unelected judiciary and on which their wish to vote has been clearly thwarted, in violation of the letter and spirit of their state Constitution, by the actions of an unrepresentative and unresponsive legislature.

    The problem here is this; you are unable to admit that you would rather deny voters rights and ignore fundamental principles of our democratic and constitution-based system than risk not having gay marriage. Your criticism of Romney’s motivations and actions are nothing more than your rationalizations for your support of disenfranchising voters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 2:26 am - December 30, 2006

  18. As for your claim of gerrymandering of Massachusetts’ state legislative districts (I know nothing about it), what is your solution to correct this perceived injustice?

    Simple; divide Massachusetts into as many legislative districts of equal geographic size and continuity as you wish to have state senators, assign seats in the House to each district based on population, hold a single election in each district, and rank the candidates in order of number of votes cast for them. Number 1 becomes the Senator, Numbers 2, 3, however many fill the House seats.

    For example, in Legislative District 3, four candidates run for one Senate seat and two House seats. Candidate A receives the most votes and becomes the Senator for Legislative District 3, Candidates B and C receive the next most amounts of votes and take the two House seats, and Candidate D, who got the least votes of the four, is out.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 2:40 am - December 30, 2006

  19. Because, Pat, you are demanding that Mitt Romney ask for a petition that affects him only on a matter which, over the course of hundreds of years of state legislation and voter referendum, has been positively established; namely, he is allowed to marry.

    I don’t believe I was demanding it, but if Romney did do it, at least he would come off as more sincere that he really gives a whit about the will of the people. But how has it been established over the course of hundreds of years that Mitt Romney should be allowed to marry? Maybe the voters feel that obsessive, bigoted, Mormon governors shouldn’t be allowed to marry. So let’s put it to the test and not prevent the voters from voting on it. Yes, I realize this is absurd, but in my view, not much more absurd than Romney’s actions.

    And why? Because he is advocating that voters should be allowed to vote, as is their Constitutional right

    Again, my point is his motivation. I doubt very much that he really cares what the people of Massachusetts wants. He stated that he will do anything within the law to stop gay marriage. Period. He found another way he could do it. So good for him. My other point is, if the situation in Massachusetts instead was as follows…There is no gay marriage, the courts ruled against it, and the legislature is against it. However, a clear majority of voters are for it. I doubt very much that Romney would call for a vote for it. No, I cannot prove it, but I would bet the rent on it.

    The problem here is this; you are unable to admit that you would rather deny voters rights and ignore fundamental principles of our democratic and constitution-based system than risk not having gay marriage. Your criticism of Romney’s motivations and actions are nothing more than your rationalizations for your support of disenfranchising voters.

    In the second to last paragraph of #16, I clearly say otherwise. Granted, it was snarky, and I gave my opinion of what I think of the voters who would do it. By no means am I advocating that they shouldn’t have the right. But I also say that I advocate anyone who wants to keep their rights to do whatever means they can within the law to do so.

    Simple; divide Massachusetts into as many legislative districts of equal geographic size and continuity as you wish to have state senators, assign seats in the House to each district based on population, hold a single election in each district, and rank the candidates in order of number of votes cast for them. Number 1 becomes the Senator, Numbers 2, 3, however many fill the House seats.

    Your plan seems fair enough to me. But one problem is, if I’m correct, is the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, except for the U.S. Senate, any apportionment of legislators must be based on population, otherwise, it would violate “one person, one vote” rule. If that is true, your plan could be modified by dividing the state into 40 districts of equal population, and in a clear, geographically continuous manner. Have one state senator, and four state representatives for each district. New Jersey has a similar construction also with 40 districts, but only two assemblyman per district. However, we do have some gerrymandering, including my state district. New Jersey’s Constitution of 1947 initially had each county (21) as the district, with one senator per county, and the number of assemblyman based on population. But this was changed, I believe, for the reason stated above.

    Also, what I meant to ask, which didn’t come out as clearly as I wanted it, was how would one go about to get your idea or some other fair idea to actually happen?

    Comment by Pat — December 30, 2006 @ 9:09 am - December 30, 2006

  20. For those who are interested in seeing what the current district of Massachusetts look like,

    State Senate
    http://www.mass.gov/mgis/senate02.jpg

    State House
    http://www.mass.gov/mgis/house02.jpg

    Comment by Pat — December 30, 2006 @ 9:18 am - December 30, 2006

  21. Maybe the voters feel that obsessive, bigoted, Mormon governors shouldn’t be allowed to marry. So let’s put it to the test and not prevent the voters from voting on it.

    (shrug) Like I said, go ahead and raise the petition. But what I think you’ll find is that the wilingness to be petty to that extent is very limited outside the gay leftist population of Massachusetts.

    To your next statement, I think the best response is to simply edit it.

    Again, my point is his motivation. I doubt very much that he really cares what the people of Massachusetts wants…….No, I cannot prove it, but I would bet the rent on it.

    Unfortunately, Pat, the fact of the matter is that there is a voter petition out there with the requisite number of signatures. The Constitution says the Legislature should vote; the Legislature is refusing to vote. Claiming they should not based on a hypothetical other case is not a valid counterargument.

    What we as gays are being asked to do is to subvert founding principles of our democracy in the name of our sexual orientation. I will not.

    As for the gerrymandering issue, it depends on the state and how the redistricting power is limited or apportioned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - December 30, 2006

  22. (shrug) Like I said, go ahead and raise the petition. But what I think you’ll find is that the wilingness to be petty to that extent is very limited outside the gay leftist population of Massachusetts.

    NDT, I already said the argument was absurd. As for petty, I disagree that it is limited to the gay leftist population. Take any individual or group, including Mitt Romney or the ones who signed the petition, who is in danger of losing their right to marriage, by whatever means (popular vote, etc.) and I’m sure they would be just as “petty” and do whatever means within the law to protect their rights. Yes, it’s hypothetical, but unless you are gay, you have that luxury. Anyway, it’s Mitt Romney and the ones who signed the petition that are clearly the petty ones here.

    Unfortunately, Pat, the fact of the matter is that there is a voter petition out there with the requisite number of signatures. The Constitution says the Legislature should vote; the Legislature is refusing to vote. Claiming they should not based on a hypothetical other case is not a valid counterargument.

    I wasn’t claiming they should not. I was just trying to demonstrate what Romney’s motivations were. At this point, all I can say is I’ll leave it up to the people and the government of Massachusetts to sort it out.

    What we as gays are being asked to do is to subvert founding principles of our democracy in the name of our sexual orientation. I will not.

    Well, I’m afraid most us gays have been doing that for a LONG time. When sodomy laws existed not too long ago, most of us that lived in such states were willing to subvert founding principles and engage in activities that were illegal. As far as I know, these gay activists in Massachusetts are acting within the law to protect their rights.

    Comment by Pat — December 31, 2006 @ 8:44 am - December 31, 2006

  23. Well, I’m afraid most us gays have been doing that for a LONG time. When sodomy laws existed not too long ago, most of us that lived in such states were willing to subvert founding principles and engage in activities that were illegal.

    How so, Pat?

    The only thing we were really doing was breaking a legally-passed and enforced law. It’s a bit like speeding; technically it’s against the law, but you are perfectly within your rights to speed, as long as you’re willing to accept the consequences.

    But in this case, what we have is speeders going to court, winning a ruling from a sympathetic judge to allow them to speed at will, and then blocking any attempt by the voters to make it clear that they want speed limits.

    Anyway, it’s Mitt Romney and the ones who signed the petition that are clearly the petty ones here.

    Yes, because, heaven forbid, voters actually have the right to vote on issues that affect them, rather than doing as they’re told by an unelected court. People should always remember that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is the ultimate authority and has the right to order them to do whatever its justices want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - January 1, 2007

  24. NDT, basically you are saying that it is wrong for someone to find a way within the law to protect their rights, but it is okay to say to the voters “you can have your law, but I am going to willfully break it. I’m going to do it, because I probably won’t get caught, but willing to accept the consequences if I somehow do get caught.” I agree with you on the second point, but it appears we disagree on the first one.

    Again, I support the right of the voters here. We agree 100% on that. But that doesn’t mean that my opinion of the governor or the ones who petitioned this has to be favorable. If your opinion of them is favorable, that’s okay too. We just disagree.

    I already explained why I think the governor is petty, and how doesn’t give a whit about the will of the people, even if in this case, the majority of voters happen to agree with him. I believe the ones who petitioned this are petty, because there are plenty of laws that are passed that people don’t agree with. In this instance, it involves a law that really doesn’t affect them. In other words, no one is forcing anybody to marry someone of the same sex, and it doesn’t affect their own rights of marriage. To choose this issue to have everyone vote on it is petty in my view. Again, we appear to disagree on this as well. But again, it’s up to the people and government of Massachusetts to sort this out. If the voters are unfairly allowed to vote on this issue, then I’ll leave it up to them to find the means to change that, for example, voting out the legislators that are apparently preventing this vote from happening.

    Comment by Pat — January 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - January 1, 2007

  25. If the voters are unfairly allowed to vote on this issue, then I’ll leave it up to them to find the means to change that, for example, voting out the legislators that are apparently preventing this vote from happening.

    But that, Pat, is why I brought up the whole gerrymandering issue in the first place. They can’t.

    That is what compounds this issue even more. The Legislature is already spitting in the face of the voters; furthermore, it’s hiding behind a ridiculously-rigged and gerrymandered system that prevents voters from having choices.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2007 @ 12:03 am - January 2, 2007

  26. NDT, That’s why I asked above how one can go about to correct it. One thing I think we both agree on is gerrymandering. I dislike it no matter whom it favors. If the petitioners fail on getting the marriage issue to the voters, then maybe they should work on the gerrymandering issue.

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 8:10 am - January 2, 2007

  27. Since 62 out of the 200 Massachusetts legislators voted to have gay marriage be decided by the voters, it moves to the next step. My understanding is that if the next legislator has 1/4 of them vote for it, it will go on the ballot for 2008 for the voters to decide.

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 8:52 pm - January 2, 2007

  28. […] my most recent post on gay marriage, I repeated a point I have been making for as long as I’ve been blogging on […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Community’s Two Conversations on Marriage — June 27, 2008 @ 1:47 am - June 27, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.