population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that

President Bush, radio announcement, 06/03/2006.

“Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”

I don’t know what to say, except to comment, “Fantastic! Sounds like something we should encourage folks to do, even those who can only love and commit to someone of their sex.”

But sadly, his words are intended to exclude, not include. They are words of fear, not courage. They are words of politics, not leadership. They are words framing the same logic used to protect other enduring human institutions too, like slavery or women’s submissive role in society. And they are wrong. By the way, Democrats are equally wrong as they scamper to hide behind States Rights and civil unions.

I want to be clear. I’m not talking about religious definitions or rituals. They may do as they please. I am talking about issuing a license, a marriage license that essentially acts as a contract, entitling two competent people to legal advantages not otherwise available to unmarried couples, including divorce laws intended to protect and benefit children. To exclude same sex couples from availing themselves of these advantages discriminates.

And when the will of a majority (i.e., heterosexuals; 85% of the population) is stampedes on the rights of a minority (i.e., 15% of the population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that t

out weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”

I don’t know what to say, except to comment, “Fantastic! Sounds like something we should encourage folks to do, even those who can only love and commit to someone of their sex.”

But sadly, his words are intended to exclude, not include. They are words of fear, not courage. They are words of politics, not leadership. They are words framing the same logic used to protect other enduring human institutions too, like slavery or women’s submissive role in society. And they are wrong. By the way, Democrats are equally wrong as they scamper to hide behind States Rights and civil unions.

I want to be clear. I’m not talking about religious definitions or rituals. They may do as they please. I am talking about issuing a license, a marriage license that essentially acts as a contract, entitling two competent people to legal advantages not otherwise available to unmarried couples, including divorce laws intended to protect and benefit children. To exclude same sex couples from availing themselves of these advantages discriminates.

And when the will of a majority (i.e., heterosexuals; 85% of the population) is stampedes on the rights of a minority (i.e., 15% of the population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that

, not leadership. They are words framing the same logic used to protect other enduring human institutions too, like slavery or women’s submissive role in society. And they are wrong. By the way, Democrats are equally wrong as they scamper to hide behind States Rights and civil unions.

I want to be clear. I’m not talking about religious definitions or rituals. They may do as they please. I am talking about issuing a license, a marriage license that essentially acts as a contract, entitling two competent people to legal advantages not otherwise available to unmarried couples, including divorce laws intended to protect and benefit children. To exclude same sex couples from availing themselves of these advantages discriminates.

And when the will of a majority (i.e., heterosexuals; 85% of the population) is stampedes on the rights of a minority (i.e., 15% of the population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that

age license that essentially acts as a contract, entitling two competent people to legal advantages not otherwise available to unmarried couples, including divorce laws intended to protect and benefit children. To exclude same sex couples from availing themselves of these advantages discriminates.

And when the will of a majority (i.e., heterosexuals; 85% of the population) is stampedes on the rights of a minority (i.e., 15% of the population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that

population) under the ruse of the nation’s desire, my stomach turns. It is simply wrong.

Clear your mind for one second and walk through the following scenario.

Imagine you live in a house. Imagine you are married and have three healthy kids. Imagine Steven and Peter move in next door from out-of-state. You get to know them over the next year. You learn that Steven and Peter have been partners for ten years. You learn that they are great neighbors and great with your kids. What you don’t learn is that they were married in Massachusetts four years ago. Oh yeah, unfortunately, you learn your spouse has been having an affair with a neighbor on the other side of your house.

How would knowing about their marriage change anything in your life? In your marriage? In your parenting? Did thinking they were not married make you behave any differently? Probably not. What was the real threat to your family? Certainly not Steven or Peter or their secret marriage. In fact, they are probably where you sent your kids when you had to confront your cheating spouse.

So why? What is it that we fear so much? I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why homosexuals can’t be as happy and miserable as the rest of us.