Roger,

Let me begin by saying that I agree that McGreevey was using his “homosexuality” (I’d say he’s bi-…he had to have sex at least twice, and enjoy it enough to impregnate) to shield him from scrutiny. I also agree that this wasn’t a big step forward for the gay rights movement. Nobody wants their cause to be used for ill.

My points of disagreement comes during the following soapbox emanations:

We have reached a point where in polite society, anti-gay is deemed Neanderthal, as it should be…Gay marriage is in the air and seems inevitable in some form, again as it should be.

Phew! Thanks for clearing that up. To think, if I had lived in another state and voted before you made these grand proclamations on the natural order of things, I could have been part of the tyranny of the majority!

To think, my opposition to this behavior wasn’t informed by my religious beliefs, it was just uninformed (Neanderthal? You can do better than that).

Inevitable? You’d like to think so. You didn’t even post on the Missouri ban. Your primary response to the groundswell of support for traditional marriage has been to ignore it. This tactic has been used before, by lesser individuals.

Look, we all have our pet causes. We all believe the things that we do (strongly, I might add) because of our experiences and what we have been taught. To paint a large swath of the populace as a bunch of large-foreheaded, slouchy, uncontrollable droolers who oppose your illuminated cause is something I would expect from a MSM news account. I just think that this kind of thing is beneath you.