Your argument that the opposition to homosexual "marriage" is purely religious or Christian is simply false. Having said that, the last time I checked, people in this country were by law guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Homosexual radicals' constant attacks on religion, particularly Christians, and pandering to anti-Christian sentiments to gain support among non-Christians only further show the ugly face of the radical homosexual movement.

I can assure you, however, these repugnant tactics are duly noticed by individuals, religious or otherwise, who are capable of independent and critical thinking, and objectivity.

But it would be criminal -- tyranny even -- for you to insist that everyone else accept you and your partner as wife and wife, regardless of what we think and say at the ballot box. Enjoy your freedom of religion. Enjoy the freedom to live as you see fit. Please, allow your neighbors the freedom to accept or reject your choices as WE see fit. Anything less would be "shoving your morality down our throats."

NOW it means, keep your damned mouth shut, if you believe in religion.

Tyrants. Easy to recognize, arent they?

How "American" is it to deny religious people a voice in the national conversation?

Stacey, what tactics are you referring to? What fear tactics? What Anti-American sentiment? Just because my philosophies are different than yours I'm guilty of being Un-American? How tolerant of you.

Everyone is free to believe as they wish, and to act upon those beliefs, even to promote them. That is all guaranteed under the freedoms of the Constitution. What is not guaranteed is the right to impose those beliefs on others. In California and in Maine, the people were asked to decide the law they would live by. That is the ultimate in freedom in the arena of ideas.

It's interesting that you would categorize one entire side of the debate as tyrannical, yet the side you chose is not the side imposing their views on the rest in a protected, whether you like it or not, way.

Bias?

It is very encouraging to see that so many of us simply refuse to be indoctrinated by radical liberal media or bullied/bribed into submission.

The Maine law that would have enabled homosexuals to marry received strong support from the legislature and the Governor, but was rejected by the voters 53% to 47%. Maine also had a 60% turnout on Nov. 3, suggesting that a lot of voters were angered by the homosexual’s corruption of the legislature.

First off, I can see where you're coming from in attatching a gay marriage bill along with a budget cut seems is in poor taste. But as for "special-interest politicking", I can't see anything more shameless as building a war chest to threaten any Republican's career if they don't cooperate with your demands. Not only is it a far more blatant attempt at political manipulation, it's using scare tactics, threats, and bullying to do so.

Secondly, I don't appreciate being told that gay marriage is not based on "truth and justice". I don't quite understand what your definition of truth implies, but gay marriage is based on nothing but justice. Our founding fathers acknowledged that all men are created equal, and to penalize men and women, Americans, under the law for whom they love is cruel and derogatory.

I understand and sympathize with the dilemnas you all are forced to come to terms with in your campaign for this cause. After reading your arguements for your cause, it seems that you worry about the exact things my side of the movement, the LGBT side, worries about. Neither of us wants to have our rights sacrificed by appeasing the needs and desires of the other side. You do not want to lose the control over to the right to believe and teach what you wish, and I do not want to be unprotected and insecure under the law with the one I love. It's a shame our idealogies have to clash in such a way.

However, after watching your strategies, I am affraid that I'm not impressed with your tactics. Some of your previous campaigns, especially your recent use of children as an emotional foothold for legislative and popular vote, I found to be in poor taste. This "war chest" is equally disgraceful. Therefore, I'm affraid I can't stand by and say nothing any longer. Even if it's only verbal criticism, from this point forward, I will oppose the National Organization for Marriage.