Days before the election, President Bush is falling back on a tried-and-true topic for mobilizing the base: fear of gay marriage.
“For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order,” Bush told a Georgia crowd Monday. “Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended.”
The court ruled that the state must extend to same-sex couples the same legal rights and benefits as married couples enjoy, either in marriage or civil unions — it’s up to the Legislature to decide.
In fact, Bush has expressed support in the past for civil unions for gay couples. “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in a TV interview in 2004.
But that doesn’t make for a good applause line on the stump.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BobChi on Moran correct about Cuba
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
95 Comments
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in a TV interview in 2004.
See? Dubya can be classified as a centrist too!
Yes will, Bush SAYS nice things about allowing rights but he ACTS against them. He has never actually proposed a mechanism for allowing unions; instead he has worked to prevent any such movement toward equal treatment.
I’m for gays having the same right that I enjoy: marriage to the opposite sex.
Speaking of gay marriage, it is my opinion that America isn’t ready for it yet. I mean, we have our share of complete whackos out there, and gay marriage might just be the catalyst to push them over the edge. I don’t know about you, but I get pretty nervous about a majority who is armed to the teeth and to this day continues to harass verbally as well as physically assault, and intimidate gay people. So far it’s only been beatings, if gay marriage pulls through, it’s only a matter of time before some damn fool pulls a gun.
I think we should force people like S&M to have arranged marriages to same sex partners and let him see how he likes it.
Anyone want to take bets on whether or not he’d cry discrimination and ask the ACLU to take his case?
Will, I’m afraid that the whacko on the street who sees two guys or girls who are making out,well, ….I’m afraid he’s not going to ask about their marital status before he makes a decision on doing a hate crime.I do see your point though, of it’s legalized it could push him over the edge. Personally, I don’t think we can legislate for “what if?”.
Will – at least shooting someone is less cruel than beating him to death. The “religious” wackos have done that – remember that kid in Wyoming they left tied to a fence?
Mom, ol’ SM isn’t even bringing a viable point.It’s just being a troll.If it was to be civil, we could too.
Ben,I saw the documentary of that. Mathew Shepard wasn’t it? But he was killed by a couple of thugs who robbed him, then left him for dead on a fence in some open field. I don’t see where you get the “religious” aspect involved in his murder Ben, save for the part where religious folk protested at his funeral.
I give an opinion which I believe the majority of people in the U.S. agree with. For that I get the usual name-calling of “S&M” and “troll”.
Brilliant!
What Bush doesn’t understand is that ‘activist judges’ are nothing but a coined term from the far-right. There is no such thing as “activist judges” because usurpation of the Legislative branch is impossible for a judge or justice to do. The appointment of justices Alito and Roberts are not a sure-fire way that homosexual marriage is not going to be enacted into law, (contrary to the beliefs of the far-right) because the legislation of laws is Congress’ job. If the far-right really wanted to stop same-sex marriage then they should be focusing on voting for anti-gay marriage constituents. Bush’s appointment of two conservative judges on the Supreme Court was just a political stunt to appease his base, the religious right.
You’re an idiot Ben Huie. Blacks had the same rights as whites before Loving v. Virginia– they could marry people of the same race. It was a dumb argument before, and it is a dumb argument now.
John it was SM who said that. The format is confusing I know, but the person’s whose name wrote the item is UNDER the line.
Not a dumb argurment at all idiot John. I’m simply referring to allowing equal legal status to same-sex couples. Thus my term equal treatment. What does that have to od with Loving v Virginia?
Thanks political mom. I guess I hadn’t considered that idiot John just didn’t know how to read!
Keep heteros out of it, please.We already have one person on here who is apparently offended by heterosexual relationships.
I wish I had thought of this. Somebody on television the other night said that he believed in gay marriage because he believed that “Gay people have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us !”
But before you consider a gay marriage personally, keep one thing in mind. The bobblehead judges that “devolve” through the domestic court in Sedgwick County can’t seem to figure out a “straight divorce”. I can’t imagine their first “gay divorce” !
larryimagaydemocrat,
HEY FUCKBUNNY!
I’m still waitin on ya! Get your no good yella keister out here!
Don’t feed the trolls.
Studies show that virulant homophobia is a sign of latent homosexuality.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I’ve asked the question before, and I’m asking it again.
What are the anti-gay marriage folks so afraid of?
if dykes and fags want to get married let them, but pass a law that they cannot adopt. :)
Pass a law that Madonna can’t adopt, for Christ’s sake. There’s a serial killer in the oven, for sure ! And I’m really really sick of hearing about it !
this sumbitch tree snipin bastard troll never uses a single moniker. I’ll have to improvise.
Good luck with those cowards will,I’ve gone so far as sending them emails (when it’s viable) to give them my personal info so we could get together and “discuss” the issues.They are just some weirdo pussies that get a kick out of talking sicko to people.Probably rubbin’ one out while he has gay fantasies and types.
I fear no homosexual. But them “marrying” does no good for the traditional moral society that I wish to live in. Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy….not two of one of them.
SM, that last remark was NOT directed at you.Yours is a valid point of view and not posted like a trolling twit.
Tracy,
Yeah, the sumbitch lowlife loser has probably got his hands “occupied” with some tweezers right now. Not big enough to get a hand grip I suppose. I guess that’s what happens when your only goal in life is to make a complete ass of oneself online, one’s penis begins to shrink.
Civil unions for homosexuals is fine by me. It is interracial marriage that should be outlawed!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
They’re afraid gay relationships might put their straight relationships to shame?
They won’t be able to demonize them as much if they start seeing them in their own communities?
They might go to jail for having to put their foot down and act on their homophobia?
They might actually have to work/live/school with some of those ‘perverts’?
They might have to make their kid beat up on the kids from gay parents?
I sometimes wonder if it isn’t just a ploy to keep intelligent folks from actually discussing the issues.Naw, it ain’t that bright.Nevermind.
Ian,How’s the rainbow brite collection coming along btw?
:)
Ian’s still pissed because Castro took his daddies money.And the fact that he’s a Cuban Nazi.
Ian,I’m just wondering, is there a Cuban Nazi or Cuban Skinhead Convention where you live? If so, then who’s rainbow brite collection is the most complete?
OH MY GOD S&M – someone might do something you don’t approve of! The humanity!
Since when do you decide what is moral and proper for the rest of us? When it affects you not one iota?
Since Johnny needs a mommy and a daddy so much, are you going to end single parenting? Are you going to advocate keeping abortion legal when one or both parents doesn’t want the child? Are you going to insist that the child molesting (straight) fathers in prison come out because Jonie needs daddy to molest her some more? Make mothers who lost their husbands in war give up their children to married Christian couples?
The point I’m trying to make is there is not one OPTIMAL anything, life is not sweet and wonderful and black and white.
Give these children in foster homes a choice, stay in foster care, or live with a loving stable gay couple who will love them. Those are the choices. Which do you think they’d prefer?
Ya’ see Will, SM.It’s like this, the only thing we must agree on here is unity.We often disagree on issues, and I’m always sarcastic yet try not to cross a line into cutting personal insults, we may not agree on where that line is, but if you tell me flat out, “don’t call me this”, then granted.Now this troll has no personal integrity and would not be backed up by anyone from either side, so back to my point.Libs and Cons can stand together when it/they start this BS.That’s what I’m talking about.
Hey idiot s&m, stop posting under my id.
Oh you nutjob, it’s my day off. I don’t have time to sit at the computer and play at work like you.
It is my society and civilization as well. So, yes it does affect me. And it’s not just me that thinks this way. Believe it.
Like the comic said,Go ahead and let the gays marry, at least it would cut down on all that nasty sex. It worked for me.I know there is something in that wedding cake.
Well shoot then S&M we can just toss our constitution and civil rights out the window and make everything a majority vote. Be ready though, you might not like the rights you lose when that happens too.
Stop calling me “S&M” or I will find the nastiest name I can think of for you. Trust me.
You have your opinion. I have mine.
nastiest name you can think of?Inquiring minds want to know!
Get lost SM.
JR,
What? You don’t agree with me so you tell to to leave? How quickly most all of these blogs turn personal. It’s just stupid.
nastiest name I can think of, wow! that’s a brain teaser.
augh they cut me off!
I wasn’t done yet.
where’s the love
I will listen to the Religious Righties about same-sex marriage when they start attacking the problems of divorce, adultery, spousal abuse, etc. in the one man-one woman marriages!
I don’t hear the Religious wackos saying anything about these problems. Why? Are these problems too close to their own front doors?
Gays choose to be gay – where did you get your information? There has not been one TRUE scientific study that has indicated that homosexuality is in anyway a choice.
To say otherwise is truly hypocritical. You may WANT it to be a choice, but every indication is that gays are born that way.
If a gay marriage threatens YOUR marriage then you have a lot of more important issues to address than if Bill and Bob across the street tie the knot.
I agree WSC. I have been married 35+ years; I do not feel threatened in any way by any sort of gay marriage/union/whatever.
LOL good job Will.
Keep em coming! Yeah baby I’m all those things.
I said Hitler_loving_socialist_flag_burning_aids_infested_booger_eatin’_gonnorhea_transmittin’_no_good_black_lovin’_mom_child_beatin’_mom.
you were done a long time ago!
SM
In my opinion you add little to this forum. And you are the LAST person to bemoan personal attacks after your attacks on political mom.
So yes SM, I would like you to leave. I can’t make you.But I can make your stay very unpleasant.
lets see if i get this right: ian is a racist, will hates everyone that doesn’t agree with him/her , and pmom is a hack for will
Psst, Jr, I think it’s hillarious that he gets so bent out of shape that I call him S&M. He sounds like he’s a real riot in the bedroom. I can imagine it now…SHUT YOUR EYES REALLY TIGHT TURN OFF THE LIGHTS AND LAY ON YOUR BACK AND DON”T MOVE FOR 3 SECONDS WHILE I SPILL MY SEED FOR PROCREATION! Because by God, that’s the way the lord wants it to be.
ictsux,
Yeah, Peemom and me, we got a helluva history! But she’s the last person I would consider my “hack.”
Hate, prejudice and fear is all bush and the Republicans have. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone. I DEFY ANYONE to prove otherwise.
I’m all about the love, man! All about the L-O-V-E!
I’m nobody’s hack bucko.
Hey where’d S&M run off to, I thought we were playing a game?
am i fhat, i think so, thanks. sorry about the hack reference. what was this about gays or bashing peoples opinions about gays. or bush going both ways.
or will just being will
Bush going both ways!?
Yeah, our resident troll can tell you about “Bush going both ways” from personal experience!
If you sign in to typekey, then anyone can verify who you are.Why don’t ya’ be a real human and sign in for us?
The opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court did not raise doubt about the institution of marriage. It, instead, found that the state Constitution required legal recognition of, as I recall, disparate treatment of those in a long term comitted same sex relationsip under the law; and, as a remedy, gave the state legislature a limited period in which to determine whether there would be “gay marriage” or “civil unions” recognized by the state, entitled to equal protection under the laws of the state. Again, accuracy is not an applause getter at a stump speech. I, however, do not see any threat to the “institution of marriage” as perceived by the President. My marriage of 34 years (as of December 1) surely isn’t threatened.
The problems remains using the name of a religious sacrament to describe a civil, legal relationship. Somehow, this needs to be resolved; until it is, we will continue to have these debates.
There I go again, typing behind thinking. What I was trying to say was that the State constitution prohibited disparate treatment, and required recognition of the long term…
Resolution is simple VT. Simply do away with “marriage” as a Caeser entity entirely. Replace it with “union”. Than allow the churches to do as they please.
In fact, I would take it a step further. Suppose two widows wished to ‘combine’ their legal/financial existence? Why not allow that? “Union” could cover a number of circumstances.
“What are the anti-gay marriage folks so afraid of?”
Butt-sex.
And…that about covers it, I think.
Ben, I’d be all for that idea as long as this union is limited to two people; so if the widows wish to remarry, they must dissolve their union first. Otherwise, the tax benefits get messy.
I honestly have no idea why people can’t see these are all the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS against interracial marriage.
I agree that “marriage” is a loaded word, even for myself. If it’ll make everyone happier, we should reserve that word for the churches who perform unions. I doubt, if given the chance to have all the legal protections, gays will holler over the name.
Ben, agreed; much of what is sought to be accomplished by legal recognition of “union” can be done by careful estate planning, beneficiary designations, etc. However, at least one thing that cannot be so done is access to Social Security survivor benefits, which accrue to the surviving spouse in a “marriage”, or a divorced spouse of a decedent who was married to the decedent for at least ten years, etc. While you may rightfully argue that this is simple, change “spouse in a marriage” to “partner in a union”, I submit this would not be easily done. Thus, the push for legalizing “gay marriage” and a bit less force behind “civil unions”.
As you may be aware, there are certain legal rights of inheritance which accrue to the surviving spouse in a marriage upon the death of the first. Again, much of this may be taken care of by a carefully drafted Will, or Revocable Trust, for example, but what of the situation (common among “straight” couples, too) where the instruments are never done; the law protects the spouse, to some extent, but under current law, the partner in an unmarried relationship (hetero or gay) is simply left out. Some of the policy issues inherent in resolution of this include, but are not limited to, how long should we, as a society, deem the relationship as needing to last before these rights accrue? Perhaps we, in Kansas, could look to the spousal election provsions of the Probate Code for some guidance. However, for any of you who have no idea about what I am posting when I say that, this scheme is horrendously complex and arcane in nature; would that be workable? I don’t have an answer, but examination of this issue would be needed.
Finally, for GMC; how would the spousal privilege work, should civil unions be recognized? I am sure he has had to deal with arguments concerning “common law” marriage in prosecutions and statements made to one “spouse” by another.
Again, just my 2 cents; food for thought.
Butweloveeachother,
If they want all the 1,000+ rights and benefits of legal marriage, why do you care? If they can’t find wives and decide to hitch together for the long haul–
Why do you care?
Why do you care?
Why do you care?
That said, the broad-intent unions that Ben is suggesting can wait. Give loving gay couples the right to wed, first.
I’d argue against incestuous unions on the grounds that any procreation between them will cause a genetically abnormal child; which means it causes harm. Take away the procreation thing and I couldn’t care less.
I suspect Tara is among the younger of us posting, and her “couldn’t care less” attitude is, from talking to both daughters, common in the younger cohort. As such, those who fear, rationally or irrationally, “gay marriage” and other relationships offensive to their beliefs, recognize their time is short to mold the law into what they want, thus the push for the marriage amendments, laws defining marriage, etc., under the principle of inertia; once these are on the books, it becomes more difficult to reverse course.
For the record: I agree with Tara concerning the procreation argument for banning incestuous relationships.
I have heard that the “Alabama” syndrome is an urban myth. The chances of a messed up kid from incest is not as big as one might think. Somebody find out, my wife/sister is calling.
VT – you and I are on the same page. My Union idea would REPLACE marriage completely. There would be no such thing as marriage in Caeser’s domain. Thus Union would then carry everything that is currently carried by Caeser’s version of Marriage. Social Security, hospital visits, etc etc etc.
Tara – with the widows the old “unions” were dissolved by death as with marriage today.
I would allow clergy to perform the civil paperwork just as they do now; I would also allow them to discriminate as to who they do it for. I would not ask a Priest to perform a union for a gay couple for example.
“Marriage” then would be reserved to the Church. We do not take our children to Caeser to be baptised but we do register their births. We do not go to Caeser to anoint the dead but we register deaths. So with my proposal we would not go to caeser for Marriage; only to register the Union.
VT,Your suspicion is correct. At 22, I’m a spring chicken. I also don’t worry about my neighbors’ business. As long as they don’t have more rights than me and as long as they’re not harming anyone, I have no desire to interfere. After all, I have so much going on in my OWN life to worry about.
I’d hate to think in 50 years I’d be pushing for hatefilled, irrational amendments for the reasons you stated.
Ben-That sounds good as far as it goes, but you have to go to Caeser to get goverment (tax payer) benefits. That won’t fly in large parts of the country.
Gee ben, an insightful, thoughtful comment. What in god’s name were you thinking posting that here? lol ;-P
I can agree with Ben. Each church or minister can decide for whom they wish to marry. That is already happening today with heterosexuals. When I wanted to marry my husband, one church wanted to dictate under the circumstances they would marry us under. I said no thanks and that was it- I found another church..I”m actually thankful that those in the first church said no, I really like that minister in the church we were married at now. The 1st church said they wouldn’t marry us if we were already living together. I was almost 30 years old, it was my second marriage, and I felt I was old enough to decide for myself who was living in my house.
The second minister asked that we come for counseling, and we did. I put it like this. “I’m not a child, I’ve been through one horrible marriage, I stayed single for a long time figuring out who I was and how not to make that same mistake twice. I’m smart enough to realize that it takes more than just loving someone to have a stable marriage, it takes compromise and committment and respect for one another and mutual understanding of how a relationship works… that feelings will change as time goes on and that we go into this as a partnership for the long haul. I would not be here if I had any convictions at all about committing to this”. We didn’t need to come back for more counseling.
True. I’d be looking for caeser to give everything to union that it used to give to marriage. There would then be no such thing as marriage in caeser’s realm.
That way the state could not in any way sully the religious institution of marriage.
Vaughn, Tara and Ben are all making sense and saying, essentially, the same things. But, they’re preaching to the choir — it’s an argument over semantics — what do you call “it” ? Marriage, legal union, spousal equivilency ? What term is going to make everybody happy ? Probably none of the above. Certainly not the morons who are more concerned with personal attacks on each other than an issue. I guess they can ask their sisters/brothers tonight at bedtime.
Bush doesn’t really have an opinion on gay marriage.
Why should he? It doesn’t make any money for Halliburton.
But it sure gets the rapture right all excited.
So he plays Rove’s game–bash gays while “reaching out” to gays.
Same with the blacks. When the elections get close, go with the “Willie Horton” ad. But then “reach out” with some mollifying b*llsh*t.
Worst. President. Ever. in the Worst. Government. Ever. run by the Worst. Party. Ever.
Al Gore brought up Horton first.Please see my post # 5558
hotlick,
“Al Gore brought up Horton first.”
Did you miss my earlier reply, or are you stupid?
Gore only pointed out in a debate that murders had been committed by prisoners out on furlough. He didn’t give a name(s), or race.
Gore didn’t mention rape. Horton committed rape, NOT murder. Details near bottom of page at http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
The argument of “Marriage in all but name” has one great problem. We all saw what happened with “separate but equal” schools.
Senator Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe in gay marriage either. Civil Unions yes, gay marriages no.
Thanks, cosmos–
Your fact-based reasoning is extremely confusing to Hotlips.
He’s never encountered it before from his right-wing gods . . .
Garth McGinn is best suited to serve the constituents of Kansas 4th Congressional District. He will not be beholden to special interests that have dominated our current representative for the past 12 years. Garth’s positions are moderate. He would help lead the effort in sincere campaign funding and ethics reform. Garth believes energy independence can benefit Kansas farmers immensely and reduce our reliance on foreign oil by doubling fuel efficiencies in 5 years and having half of vehicles on alternative fuel by 10 years. He knows it is a key growth area for Kansans and the nation, requiring both public investment and tax incentives. He will work to simplify the tax code and end loopholes enjoyed by just the wealthiest Americans. The incumbent has little to nothing to show for his 12 years as your representative in Washington, and has no plan for the needed changes. It is time for a change in Washington and the the Republican party’s unparalleled corruption, crony capitalism and scandal. .
Garth McGinn will be an advocate for the change and improvement sorely needed. Garth McGinn will best represent you.
Wow, just read the comments here and no one should wonder why the rest of the country thinks kansas is populated with snake handlers who think jesus is a republican. They really believe liberals want to allow people to “marry their german shepards.”
And will’s dumbass notion that gay marriage will increase hate crimes is nearly the dumbest thing I have ever read here. And that, as we say out here, is going some.
So… read these comments and then ask yourself, why would anyone bring their business to kansas?
Oh, but it is the media’s fault that kansas is portrayed as full of religious nut jobs. yeah. right.
Kansas…as bigoted as you think.
And yet another question…
Assuming will isnt lying about going to law school, who the hell would hire a lawyer who thinks like that?
Oh yeah, his idol, phillllllll klein.
Or GMC?
They seem to be peas in a pod.
And they wonder why we have no confidence in the legal system….
Howdy girl.Smell the wingnut desperation polluting the crisp autemn air?Smells great!
Oh, and Tracy, I’m gonna beat ya to it.
The stench of wingnut desperation is getting stronger.
They just cant get their hands out of the old bag of tricks.
BILL CLINTONBILL CLINTON
BLAME THE MEDIABLAME THE MEDIA
and now?
GAY MARRIAGEGAY MARRIAGE
jesus wept
I guess if you cant dazzle ‘em with brilliance ya just have to baffle them with bullshit.
And the sheeple follow….
meanwhile…
Over 100, THAT’S ONE HUNDRED Americans died in iraq this month.
For what? Haliburton? The oil? Bush’s ego?
ONE HUNDRED AMERICANS DIED IN IRAQ THIS MONTH
With no strategy for victory other than stay the course. Stay the course all the way into hell.
And the flag waving wingnuts wanna worry about gay marriage?
I think that just about says it all for the credibility of the right side of the blog.
heheheheh
a vote for toddly is a vote for kansasfarmboy…..
Farm Gal,Given the history of other rights movements, Will is probably right about an increase in hate crimes as the gay rights movement nears the finish line and the homophobes get more and more frantic. I’m not trying to discourage the movement, or suggest people stay closeted, but I do want to point out the nature of backlashes, and suggest that everyone, straight or gay who’s involved in the movement, resolve to watch each other’s backs and don’t take unnecessary risks. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better!
Will,If you think the homophobes might resort to murder, you’re a bit late; they’ve been doing just that for decades. Difference is that since the movement started, the press is finally taking note of antigay violence.
Hi again trollie!
This one is almost cute hitting multiple threads and stealing nics. I’m gonna call it trollie.
Hey Trollie? Some day and probably soon, gay people are going to have the same rights as to unions that straight people have. YOU cannot stop it! You will have to deal with it.
Know what else trollie? Abortion is ALWAYS going to be legal!
Hey trollie? Organized prayer is outta the schools and it aint never ever goingback!
Come on blow up for us trollie!
KFG,What’s with the attitude?
KFG,When it comes to sexual orientation, I don’t see homo-Americans or hetero-Americans, I just see Americans. It is the same with race. Re-read my assertion about violence against gays and you will find that I am in no way supportive of killing gay people or stopping the gay-marriage agenda. (I can’t interject faith into my legal profession so it is immoral and unprofessional for me to work against gay marriage using religious reasons.) I was merely expressing my concern for my fellow AMERICANS safety. So, now that we have established the fact that I view everyone with equal contempt, I would like to extend to you a negative diagnosis of your character as you have so graciously done to mine. You see KFG, I believe you to be a hypersensitive, stark-raving foaming at the mouth lunatic who has the equivalent of a third-grade reading and comprehension level. In fact, if you don’t believe that I am what I say that I am, then why don’t you give me your address? I will be more than happy to drive out to your house and give you a piece of my mind about your rabid, psychotic rantings on the WEBlog! I’m not sure why you can’t seem to comprehend that I would be the first to defend your old lesbian ass should your life be endangered. As a Christian, it is my duty to defend you from people who would seek to do you bodily harm. (You do know what ‘duty’ means don’t you?) Take a look around, you’re not exactly living in a ‘gay-friendly’ environment. Is it really such a stretch to say that if gay-marriage is legalized in Kansas, that ultra-religious zealots won’t be proclaiming open season on people like you? I don’t think so. Given the actions of racists during the final stages of the Civil Rights movement (A misnomer I think, since YOUR rights have yet to be attributed you, KFG) it is documented fact, sociologically speaking that almost immediately after a movement which has succeeded in attaining its goals while enduring heavy opposition had experienced almost an immediate backlash from the traditional right-wing, and you don’t get heavier opposition than in God guns n’ gays Kansas, woman. So I am still baffled as to how you took my appraisal of a potentially explosive situation as a threat, or as an argument against gay Americans getting married. My guess is, either your naturally inclined to be dense, or you were inhaling cleaning detergent while blogging. I don’t know, just a shot in the dark.