Sorry about the confusion.
Personally, I would vote against the state supporting gay marriage, though I would also not support laws making such arrangements illegal. Cohabit if you want, but don’t expect the state to approve.
Contrary to the rhetoric, the goal of the promoters of gay marriage has not been mere tolerance, which is provisional disagreement lacking the will to do something about it, but rather enforced acceptance and moral equivalence comlete with penalties for anyone who disagrees.
There was a recent case in Alberta about a religious group’s editorial writer being been fined $5,000 and required to cease making “disparaging remarks” about gays. That’s the real goal in Canada and the US, first amendment freedoms in the US be damned.
Some might say the Canadians and other European nations are “out there” on this issue, and that such things would never happen in the US. There are, however, many other cases that demonstrate that increasing inroads are being made into traditional culture. Another example: the Canadian rinter who objected to printing announcements for gay club events on personal religious grounds being forced by the state to compensate the group and print their materials or lose his business license.
The truth is that this is coming to hometown America slowly but surely. Its easy enough to see with the pervasive and ongoing efforts by mainstream American media to “sanitize” the gay lifestyle through a deliberate cover of its emotional, physical, and statistical realities.
A victory for gays, a tragic loss for coming generations for whom the term “marriage” will represent first and foremost an expression of personal sexuality rather than a long-term commitment to the physical, emotional, and psychological health and safety of children.
I don’t disagree that marriage will fall, just that when it does, it will be a net loss, not a net gain. Ah, “progress.”
