The type of relationship I have in mind is the union of husband and wife. Its essential features: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

This pre-exists the law and the government. Law and government recognise but do not create nor ownthe foundational social institution of marriage.

This type of relationship has a two-sexed sexual basis which is also embedded in the marriage law. That sexual basis is foreign to the one-sex-short scenario.

The core meaning of marriage (ie the marriage idea) distinguishes this type of relationship from other types of relationships and other types of living arrangements. Societal regard for this core is the basis upon which society drawns the boundaries for eligibility and ineligibility. That core is what justifies special -- or preerential -- status in culture and in law.

I've explained this in discussions with you. You knew I had done so. But you slavishly dodge and runaway from it.

Anbd that is unfortunate because you needn't flee what you asked for. Also it is a good idea for you stop fleeing from queries about the type of relationship you have in mind. Yet you flee ... perhaps that skittishness is due to yourfeeling overburden with a weak position and weak idea. If so you would not be alone among SSMers of all kinds.

Ah, you recycle an old argument you used to use on other blog sites. But you always fail to delineate what the features are of opposite sex marriage that distinguishes it from non-marriage.

The SSMers must abandon the claim that the lack of a legal requirement for procreation somehow stands decisively against the centrality of responsible procreation.

But there are legal requirements such as the bride-groom requirement itself And the various requirements that express the sexual basis for that bride-groom requirement.

Love is not a trump card for those two-sexed relationships that are ineligible for marriage. Love is not a trump card for one-sexed relationships. Love does not make the ineligible suddenly eliogible.

It is not oppressive to note these facts of marriage law and of good lawmaking.

What is essential to the type of same sex relationship you have in mind when complaining about the bride-groom requirement of marriage law?

State the facts of that type of relationship. State how those essential features distinguish it from non-marriage. Distinguish your favor subset of the same sex scenario from the rest of the same se scenario. State the facts on these points --- facts prior to the law.

If the lack of a legal requirement that would something mandatory is decisive, as the record shows you claim it is, then, the fact is that no place that has SSM in law has bothered to make mandatory same sex sexual stuff such as same sex sexual attraction or same sex sexual behavior or even gay identity. So, factually, none of that can justify your complaint against the bride-groom requirement in marriage law. None of that stuff can justify special status for the type of relationship you have in mind -- according to your own account of the facts.

Facts are stubborn things. But progay bigotry is stubborn enough to play fast and loose with real facts.

"Not allowing gays to marry the one they love is not a form of oppression?"

No one is barring anyone from loving who they want. Stop playing the victim. The definition of Marriage being legally defined as between a man and a woman serves a purpose.

"And, please, some me some facts that those same sex marriages in the past were not accepted as their opposite sex brethren."

It's called history. I have yet to see you provide any sort of proof proving your outlandish and inaccurate claims.

"Of course, the exact ceremonies may be lost as so many things that did not adhere to church teaching, even if they had been common practice before the church took power, were destroyed."

So there's an excuse for everything then. Translation: "It never happened".

You are obviously relying on the work of the late John Boswell..

That work has been wodley discredited and shown to be (what is called) "advocacy scholarship"

Read some critiques availiable online of this work...some even by lesbians like Camiliia Paglia.

You will find that the evidence is scant and highly interpreted. That the translation of the texts is innacurate and that the entire theory is highly specious.

It is specifically designed to appeal to the emotions of homosexuals who want to beleive in a glorified past that never existed, that was then destroyed and covered up by nefarious religious homophobes who also never existed.

And, please, some me some facts that those same sex marriages in the past were not accepted as their opposite sex brethren. Of course, the exact ceremonies may be lost as so many things that did not adhere to church teaching, even if they had been common practice before the church took power, were destroyed.

"Are you saying that the Supreme Court was too liberal in striking down interracial marriage and protecting the rights of African Americans? "

No it the SCOTUS was moral in striking down the bans. Segregation of races allows one race to oppress the other. But we all know sex and race have nothing in common do we?

"Again, a bit of reading reveals that in the middle ages and among other cultures, same sex couples did marry."

Reading reveals that those societies never put same-sex relationships on the same pedestal as male/female relationships. They were never considered "Marriage". Not even the moral minds of the time saw Marriage as anything other than a male/female union.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court was too liberal in striking down interracial marriage and protecting the rights of African Americans?

And the definition of marriage has NOT always been one man and one woman. Again, a bit of reading reveals that in the middle ages and among other cultures, same sex couples did marry.

The issue MUST be addressed as bad social policy with all of the reasons laid out in simple language."

Excellent point, ihf. The time has passed for relying on a person's religious objections to ssm. Many people will say that they disapprove of homosexual behavior, but that they don't care about ssm being legalized.

No doubt many have made excellent secular arguments for retaining the opposite-sexed nature of marriage--arguments that SSMers have failed to address--but I don't think those arguments have necessarily registered with voters. Believe it or not, we might have achieved 32 consecutive marriage victories primarily because of religious objections to homosexuality. Nowadays, some people are just saying: "Whatever; I don't care. Let them get married."

We'll have more victories when the secular aspects of this issue are discussed in a way that everyone can understand. We'll have victories even among the "true" supporters, once their minds are cleared and they realize that the government doesn't pass out love licenses.

In the 70's - 18 year old got the right to vote through consitutional amendment. What? Do you think the country was full of anti-young people bigots?

Hardly...this is simply the way profound changes to consitutional rights are made.

Your much more in line with cases like Roe v Wade. This is when unprincipled people who know their wrong. force their changes on the American people through court decisions with no backing in law or precedent.

As far as people who admit the obvious concerning the definition of the right to marriage you can take your pick, Jonathan Rauch, Lawrence Tribe, Andrew Sullivan, John Corvino, May Kurkendall...basicly anyone who publishes on this subject.

Unless your willing to contend that the definition of marriage has always been "between two people of any gender" and not "between a man & woman" - then you look like someone who got caught up in an argument and forgot the facts.

The marriage idea is attacked and is demoted from its special or preferential status down to a barely tolerative status. That's abolition.

You have dropped that sort of "studtes say" before. Is that not against your stated standard? Yup.

You also asserted something about DNA of two mothers in an individual ... no reference cited. You also said something about proprty rights denied ... no reference cited. You also asserted that multiple marriage is not an issue of eligibility ... no reference cited. Against your cited standard. And each is a well-disputed assertion.

Also, Zack set you straight on your request. Did you look up PPP or no?

Hey, on your referencelessed assertions you might have it right or at least you might dispute the facts, however, the point here is that you want from others what you have not supplied in your own comments. Multiple times against your stated standard.

Fitz knows the subject material. You might leanr something substantive if you'dcalm your rhetorical flourishes and stiff pose of Mr Contrary-Whatever-They-Say.

And, please, expound on those "well informed scholars and advocates" who "admit and cede these elemental points". Oh, and cite references, please.

Thats the rules of our consitutional order.

It's rather amusing when well informed scholars and advocates on YOUR side of this debate admit and cede these elemental points but more pedestrian advocates like yourself dig your heels in and refuse to admit the most simple and obvious points.

I know you don't feel it serves your argument politically to admit your changing the definition of marriage...but that is clearly what is taking place.

From one man & one woman to two people of any sex.

FYI - When voting in this country was expanded to include first blacks, and then only later woman... each time it required a constitutional amendment.

"The definition of marriage is being expanded, but it is not being destroyed. However, restricting the rights that go with "marriage" to a select group of people is discrimination. No different than restricting voting to whites only."

Mark, an assertion is not an argument...and a analogy is only an analogy.

The definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. That is clear..

Mark, a assertion is not an argument...and a analogy is only an analogy.

The definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. That is clear..

It's rather amusing when well informed scholars and advocates on YOUR side of this debate admit and cede these elemental points but more pedestrian advocates like yourself dig your heels in and refuse to admit the most simple and obvious points.

I know you don't feel it serves your argument politically to admit your changing the definition of marriage...but that is clearly what is taking place.

From one man & one woman to two people of any sex.

FYI - When voting in this country was expanded to include first blacks, and then only later woman... each time it required a constitutional amendment.

"The definition of marriage is being expanded, but it is not being destroyed. However, restricting the rights that go with "marriage" to a select group of people is discrimination. No different than restricting voting to whites only."

Mark, a assertion is not an argument...and a analogy is only an analogy.

The definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. That is clear..

"The definition of marriage is being expanded, but it is not being destroyed. However, restricting the rights that go with "marriage" to a select group of people is discrimination. No different than restricting voting to whites only."

Mark, a assertion is not an argument...and a analogy is only an analogy.

The definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. That is clear..

It's rather amusing when well informed scholars and advocates on YOUR side of this debate admit and cede these elemental points but more pedestrian advocates like yourself dig your heels in and refuse to admit the most simple and obvious points.

"The definition of marriage is being expanded, but it is not being destroyed. However, restricting the rights that go with "marriage" to a select group of people is discrimination. No different than restricting voting to whites only."

Mark, a assertion is not an argument...and a analogy is only an anology.

The definition of marriage is between one man & one woman. That is clear..

It's rather amusing when well informed scholars and advocates on YOUR side of this debate admit and cede these elemental points but more pedestrian advocates like yourself dig your heels in and refuse to admit the most simple and obvious points.

I know you dont feel it serves your argument politically to admit your changing the definition of marriage...but that is clearly what is taking place.

From one man & one woman to two people of any sex.

FYI - When voting in this country was expanded to include first blacks, and then only later woman... each time it required a consitutional amendment. these are the 15th and 19th amendment.

Likewise if you want to follow are consitutional order you need a consitutional amendment to change the definition of marriage.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or doesn't admit how profound a change to the instution this is.

One simply asks for a marriage licence and one joins the NEW institution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or doesn't admit how profound a change to the instution this is.

One simply asks for a marriage licence and one joins the NEW institution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or doesn't admit how profound a change to the instution this is.

One doesn't go into the secretary of state in Massachusetts and ask for a gay "marriage" licence or a straight marriage licence.

One simply asks for a marriage licence and one joins the NEW institution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or doesn't admit how profound a change to the instution this is.

If you want more respect you should try ceding elemental facts that are apparent to any serious person who has thought about the obvious consequences of this revolution.

One doesn't go into the secretary of state in Massachusetts and ask for a gay "marriage" licence or a straight marriage licence.

One simply asks for a marriage licence and one joins the NEW institution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or doesn't admit how profound a change to the instution this is.

One simply asks for a marriage liceance and one joins the NEW insititution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or dosent admit how profound a change to the insitution this is.

If you want more respect you should try cedeing elemental facts that are apparent to any serious person who has thought about the obvious consequences of this revolution.

"calm yourself. No one is seeking to abolish marriage"

I am afraid this is simply wrong as a matter of fact.

Marriage as traditionally defined in law & understood in culture is being declared (literally) "irrationally bigoted".

It is then being replaced with a new understaning & definition that is genderless.

"calm yourself. No one is seeking to abolish marriage"

I am afraid this is simply wrong as a matter of fact.

Marriage as traditionally defined in law & understood in culture is being declared (literally) "irrationally bigoted".

It is then being replaced with a new understaning & definition that is genderless.

One dosent go into the secretary of state in Massachusets and ask for a gay "marriage" liceance or a straight marriage liceance.

One simply asks for a marriage liceance and one joins the NEW insititution of marriage that is made up of partner A & partner B.

No serious intellect that understands this issue disputes this fact, or dosent admit how profound a change to the insitution this is.

If you want more respect you should try cedeing elemental facts that are apparent to any serious person who has thought about the obvious consequences of this revolution.

While I don't like using it, Wikipedia contains the information in regards to state-by-state polling. Heck, Public Policy Polling is about the only firm that does polling data on this issue. Go ahead, look it up.

I can assure you the numbers are quite real. Regional polling puts support of same-sex marriage in the majority because most people live in the New England states and on the west coast.

I can assure you the numbers are quite real. Regional polling puts support of same-sex marriage in the majority because most people live in the New England states and on the west coast.

While I don't like using it, Wikipedia contains the information in regards to state-by-state polling. Heck, Public Policy Polling is about the only firm that does polling data on this issue. Go ahead, look it up.

I can assure you the numbers are quite real. Regional polling puts support of same-sex marriage in the majority because most people live in the New England states and on the west coast.

While I detest the use of it, Wikipedia contains the information in regards to state-by-state polling. Heck, Public Policy Polling is about the only firm that does polling data on this issue. Go ahead, look it up.

The studies that are out there say there is no difference in marriage involving same sex couples compared to opposite sex couples.

As far as your other issues are concerned, they do pose new ethical issues but they are not related to marriage. There is are procedures to correct genetic defects which could result in the DNA of 2 mothers being in the same individual.

Multiple marriages are a completely different issue, brought up only to cloud things.

And, funny that you brought up property transfers - that is one of the things that marriage protects. It is one of the rights denied to same sex couples. Thanks for pointing out the inequity.

The issue MUST be addressed as bad social policy with all of the reasons laid out in simple language. I have at least stumped supporters of redefinition with certain questions: if marriage is abolished, as the proponents of redefining it argue (let's get the state out of the marriage business, I have heard frequently) who is going to decide custody and inheritance issues? Who is going to define who is a parent, particularly in relationships where an egg, a sperm, a surrogate, and adoptive same sex "parents" are involved? Do blood relationships matter and if not, why not? Does the state have a right to regulate marriage? What about consanguinity and age limitations? Should they go? Should marriage be deregulated entirely? Draw me a picture of the end result of abolishing marriage.

Then there is the slippery slope - you can look back up it to see where we came from and you can draw conclusions about where we are going. When the closet burst open in the early 70s, conservatives said that decriminalizing homosexual relationships will lead to demands for marriage. They were laughed out of the room - but where are we now?

If it is a denial of their civil rights to refuse to recognize a marriage between 2 men, why is it not a denial of their civil rights to deny legal recognition to 3 men, or 1 man and multiple women, or 1 woman and 2 men, or 2 or more siblings? What would be the effect on children created or adopted by such groups? How would custody disputes be decided? How about property transfers between generations?

"Those under 35 support it by 70% (and the support is growing)."

Yet looking at it on a state-by-state basis, support for redefining marriage averages 25-35%.

It is also worth mentioning that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania came within arms length of going to Romney. I think it's safe to say that corrupt union power has finally diminished and we will see this in 2016.

Did she bother to ask people if they support giving Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections of marriage, if only under a different term such as "civil unions?" Of course she didn't.

Polls now show most Americans favor SOME form of marriage equality for Gay couples. As long as the legal benefits and protections are the same, I'd prefer not to quibble over terminology.

Yawn.

We have no idea if one party was favored within the sample. We have no idea if one region, or one or more states were favored within the sample.

Perhaps there is still hope.

Marriage quo "marriage" as originally defined is a fundemental consitutional right and stands on its own grounds as such. Not only dose it defeat any 14th amendment challenge ...it is its own consitutional right (a fact marriage redefiners concede only long enough to both assert and then redifine it)

You are intentionally misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

"Well, no. Actually it was in address to whether that period's traditional definition of marriage - man and woman of the same race - was the only valid definition."

This is simply factualy incorrect. The dictionary definition and the legal definition of marriage, as well as how people used the term and understood it was not "man and woman of the same race"..

The anti-mesegenation stautes were seperate legal statutes & were not part of marriage and family law but were rather seperate laws and were part of the criminal codes under Jim Crow...not the marriage laws themselves..

Even the quote itself that you and George truncate to make your case point to the obvious purpose of marriage as a social institution.

"Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

Obviously same-sex couplings are not "fundamental to our very existence and survival" - no one contemplated such a movement at the time those opinions were written. The Justices were free to explain the public policy behind the insitution. That policy has nothing to do with peoples romantic feelings twoards one another...and everything to do with intact family formation in light of procreative potential.

"Well, no. Actually it was in address to whether that period's traditional definition of marriage - man and woman of the same race - was the only valid definition."

This is simply factualy incorrect. The dictionary definition and the legal definition of marriage, as well as how people used the term and understood it was not "man and woman of the same race"..

The anti-mesegenation stautes were seperate legal statutes & were not part of marriage and family law but were rather seperate laws and were part of the criminal codes under Jim Crow...not the marriage laws themselves..

Even the quote itself that you and George truncate to make your case point to the obvious purpose of marriage as a social institution.

"Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

Obviously same-sex couplings are not "fundamental to our very existence and survival" - no one contemplated such a movement at the time those opinions were written. The Justices were free to explain the public policy behind the insitution. That policy has nothing to do with peoples romantic feelings twoards one another...and everything to do with intact family formation in light of procreative potential.

Marriage quo "marriage" as originally defined is a fundemental consitutional right and stands on its own grounds as such. Not only dose it defeat any 14th amendment challenge ...it is its own consitutional right (a fact marriage redefiners concede only long enough to both assert and then redifine it)

You are intentionally misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

"Well, no. Actually it was in address to whether that period's traditional definition of marriage - man and woman of the same race - was the only valid definition."

This is simply factualy incorrect. The dictionary definition and the legal definition of marriage, as well as how people used the term and understood it was not "man and woman of the same race"..

The anti-mesegenation stautes were seperate legal statutes & were not part of marriage and family law but were rather seperate laws and were part of the criminal codes under Jim Crow...not the marriage laws themselves..

Even the quote itself that you and George truncate to make your case point to the obvious purpose of marriage as a social institution.

"Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

Obviously same-sex couplings are not "fundamental to our very existence and survival" - no one contemplated such a movement at the time those opinions were written. The Justices were free to explain the public policy behind the insitution. That policy has nothing to do with peoples romantic feelings twoards one another...and everything to do with intact family formation in light of procreative potential.

Marriage quo "marriage" as originally defined is a fundemental consitutional right and stands on its own grounds as such. Not only dose it defeat any 14th amendment challenge ...it is its own consitutional right (a fact marriage redefiners concede only long enough to both assert and then redifine it)

You are intentionally misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

To prove my point, after Maryland, Maine and Washington, nine states and DC have marriage. Those nine states have 16% of the population. An additional eight states have civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Those total 17 states comprise 38% of the US population.

This is a trend that is unlikely to reverse. Rural states will be the last to offer their gay citizens the same access to civil institutions that they offer their heterosexual citizens.

You are quite right that not all geographical regions have the same response to marriage and restrictions to its access. Urban centers are much more supportive than are rural regions.

But you fail to note that in today's society, more Americans live in urban settings than in rural settings. In fact about 2/3 of Americans live in urban regions.

"In that opinion as well as Loving and prior decisions as well as sunsequent precedents including Baker V Nelson were all talking about marriage as traditionally defined."

Well, no. Actually it was in address to whether that period's traditional definition of marriage - man and woman of the same race - was the only valid definition.

Whatever conclusion the SCOTUS comes to, it is answering the same question today: "Is the restriction to marriage based on how some citizens see tradition and faith a restriction that infringes on the civil rights of other citizens".

For example, in the question above, the participant is asked to agree or disagree that "marriage is between a man and a woman". Whether or not this person supports gay marriage, many people will agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Of course that is a marriage.

But the question is whether it also is between two men or two women. Many people can say that they honestly believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and also "marriage is between two men". One need not exclude the other.

But by using biased language, you can overstate your position. You can get results for the news which don't really reflect the views of the public.

I wonder if NOM leadership is truly unaware that their poll is fraudulent - perhaps they were deceived by the dishonest methods of right-wing activist/pollster Kellyanne Conway. Maybe they thought that she was truthful, even though pretty much anyone who follows polls and pollsters would start laughing.

Because, really, the only alternative is not very good. If they weren't fooled, then that means that they used Conway on purpose. And that would be very sad. That might even suggest that they intentionally designed a poll just to fool the readers here or to fool those who will read this in their press release. And that isn't a good thing at all.

And I'm sure we all don't want for NOM to be intentionally dishonest, do we? And perhaps they will disavow this push poll.

So you live in Washington. Sadly, I guess the article below doesn't apply to you. But it could:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/07/we-couldnt-have-done-it-without-them

"Do you agree with the USSC when they said that "marriage was one of man's most basic civil rights"?"

The quote your refrencing is from Skinner v Oklohoma and is again quoted in Loving vs Virginia.

"Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

~Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942), United States Supreme Court.

In that opinion as well as Loving and prior decisions as well as sunsequent precedents including Baker V Nelson were all talking about marriage as traditionally defined.

Obviously same-sex coupling is not "fundamental to our (mankinds) very existence and survival"

You can no more change the definition of marriage and say your protecting it or "expanding" it...than you can change the definition of "arms" to mean down pillows or "speech" to mean words and ideas that support the current statist regime, or "religion" to mean practicing Catholicism... and the like.

This is not clever rehtoric your engaged in..it is open and obvious subterfuge of a fundemental consitutional right..

Your lying to yourself.

I live in Washington. And, your theory is very flawed in most ways. The eastern side of the state voted to reject R-74 in overwhelming numbers...about 65-70%. However, the large urban areas (aka Seattle) voted to approve at 66%. So it's very conceivable that the rest of the country wouldn't approve of this. Most places are NOT Seattle. Thankfully.

>> No. That would be a "wrong", not a right.

Should committed same sex couples have all the rights committed opposite sexed couples have?

>> Nope. No more than committed opposite sex couples should.

Should children raised by same sex couples be granted the same rights as children raised by opposite sexed couples?

>> Of course. It isn't their fault that they have been deprived of their own Mom and/or Dad.

Do you agree with the USSC when they said that "marriage was one of man's most basic civil rights"?

>> Of course.

Simple "Yes" or "No" questions - would be curious what the answers were.

>> Those are mine.

Those are pretty indicative of the "people's voice".

...As demonstrated in a poll conducted by a known GOP strategist who also had the added benefit of carrying Todd Akin's water post-debacle.

I don't think you could get a more impartial pollster...

Can we see the poll where people are asked:
Should same sex couples have the right to get married?
Should committed same sex couples have all the rights committed opposite sexed couples have?
Should children raised by same sex couples be granted the same rights as children raised by opposite sexed couples?
Do you agree with the USSC when they said that "marriage was one of man's most basic civil rights"?

Simple "Yes" or "No" questions - would be curious what the answers were.