So, to use your own notion: to reach the adult homosexual population you would do better to focus on other measures, because SSM is a very poor vehicle for benefiting that subset of the population.

Besides, there is no specific gay identity requirement for eligibility to SSM under the NY legislature's impostion of SSM in the local laws there. So the pro-SSM legislation is not as specific as perhaps your anti-religious rhetoric would suggest.

What sustains the special status of marriage is the core meaning of the social institution: integration of the sexes, provision for responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole.

The SSM idea does not merit special status in the first place. But it is imposed as a replacement for the marriage idea; it is imposed by way of abolishing the special reason for the special status of marriage. All that props up the SSM idea is the dangerous combination of 1) arbitrary government power and 2) the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics.

Item 1 stands against the principles of good governance that justify the authority of those who govern.

Item 2 stands against the purpose that we the people enacted the form of government under which all levels and branches of government are restrained.

The social institution of marriage has withstood such threats and hazards for millennia -- even if there have been huge social, moral, and personal costs as a result of such perils to marriage.

SSMers would set government against religions and religious people. That, too, has many examples in human history where truth prevailed even in the face of such injustice.

SSMers have yet to justify the imposition of SSM; they have yet to justify the costs that will be paid by society. They simply deny all concerns as subordinate to gay identity politics. They cannot do otherwise without abandoning the goal of imposing this version of nonmarriage on all of society. So they cling to the corruptive influence of the SSM campaign as somehow a version of unjust means justifying a just end. But that entails a further denial -- the SSM imposition is itself an unjust end.

The SSM campaign is delusional on this. Standing on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity means that marriage defenders have a higher standard to meet when responding to setbacks. But as NOM has shown before, such setbacks need not be permanent. SSMers will underestimate the authority of truth because their political loyalty lies with an obvious untruth.

SSM is not a form of marriage. It is a form of nonmarriage. Merging SSM with marriage means abolishing what makes marriage, marriage; it is the equivalent of ending the distinction between the marital type of relationship and the nonmarital types of relationships (sexual or otherwise, gay or otherwise, eithical or unethical, and so forth).

If the exemptions are granted to religious institutions, no one cares if NOM disapproves. You are all wasting your money by funding these losing battles. You would better serve your faith by helping the hungry, poor and the sick, about whose care Jesus was quite specific.

@Dan Are you not allowing links on this page?

I noticed the system is more restrictive than it used to be.

It seems they added rules that limit how many postings one can have in a thread or since they last posted in the entire system, along with length of post, trigger words, links, etc.

Since June 29 about ten posts of mine have been dropped.

My guess is they had to put the system on autopilot.

http://pfox.org/default.html

- A Quinnipiac University poll out today shows that Virginia opposes same-sex marriage: 52%-41% (but sadly support gay adoption 51%-43%)

- A PPP poll the other day found Oregonians supporting gay marriage 48%-42% (essentially a tie in polling)

When will you release your financial statements? Oh and by the way, I called the senators, Dean Skelos and the governor to thank them.

A great day for New York.

This simple step by voters is a good way to express an opinion when one has not been given the opportunity to vote directly about an issue.

Plus, it will cause politicians to think twice about failing to honor their promises to voters!

If that were true, there would not have been the need for the usual threats, harassment and intimidation.

You and NOM are special interests. You are lobbyists fighting on behalf of people who think we live in a theocracy.

Your four-year plan is over before it even got started.

Yes, but how do we know we'll be able to trust them anymore than the current trait-, er, I mean legislators who turned on us for the payoffs?

As a New Yorker, I was very disappointed, to say the least, with the passage of his bill. I had even considered moving to Ohio, a state where they respect the true meaning of marriage.

But this gives me new hope for the future, and I will definitely be staying in New York to contribute my votes to restore marriage - and sanity, to my beloved home state.