Yeah, I kinda like that big lug, too. Make that two PhillyFan Fans. Let's take a collection to buy him a Molson or five -- he was already fed up with Bush before this and is probably stewing as we speak. I'm predicting some additional libertarian votes from the PhillyFans of the world.

As for me: ABTPAC (Anybody But That Punk-Ass Chimp)

For those who didnt have time to read Hulaboys
posting of the Log Cabin response, here it is in a nutshell:

"Were mad, yeah mad, but were not going anywhere, were going to stay here and "fight" so keeping kicking away at us, and well keep up the press releases, just watch us!"
***Inclusion Wins***!!!

CNN's/Wolf Blitzers question of the day is: should the constitution be amended to ban same sex marriages? Currently NO-54%, YES-46%.

Log on and vote: Question of the day
Lets get that No percentage even higher!

Note to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) - done.

The VA Senators aren't worth the time, but I appreciate the links there, KWG.

Those things amount to little more than window-dressing that hides an eyesore of a House of Bigotry. It's like an olive branch being extended to the leader of a country whose capital has been hit with an A-bomb. Too little, too late.

Thus be it ever to tyrants.

[ February 24, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: DestinyRules ]

(a) Except that many have interpreted the language in the amendment to ban civil unions. And if the language isn't ABSOLUTELY clear, there WILL be attempts to get civil unions banned, and there WILL be right-wing judges who will uphold those bans.

( f**k his so-called respect. I don't want respect any more than I want their idea of "tolerance."

EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. NOTHING LESS.

UNBELIEVABLE!! eek! .....how BIG of you to admit that you don't agree with ALL of W's comments, HulaBoy?....so tell me, exactly what more does this incompetent bigot have to do to get you to NOT support him? -- other than speaking out so vehemently about eliminating your basic rights to equality that every other law abiding American enjoys (and, make no mistake about it, that includes TAKING AWAY EXISTING RIGHTS that we already have), relegating you to "second-class" status and advocating everything short of saying we should be marched into the gas chambers like the Jews in Auschwitz and put to death!....even if this a**hole came out said EXACTLY THAT I'm sure that you would still find a reason to attempt to justify your support of him.

I wouldn't believe it if I didn't read it hear myself -- a gay man speaking out ON BEHALF of someone who holds our entire community in such deep contempt and has such unconscionable hatred for us as human beings?....the only words that come to mind to describe your blind loyalty to this bigot are shameful, pitiful and disgraceful!....I actually have little or no anger for you, HulaBoy -- rather, I feel sorry for you because anyone who TRULY feels that way must hold absolutely NO VALUE FOR THEMSELVES as a human being and as an important member of society.

Hulaboy and others who believe the President's interpretation of the proposed ammendment are buying snake oil. The wording "legal instances thereof" Tells me no Civil Unions!

[ February 24, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Democrats slam Bush on same-sex marriage ban....to quote Ted Kennedy, "The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects the enduring principles of our country. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times....it has often been amended to protect people's rights, never to take away or restrict their rights."

[ February 24, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I'm sure that if Bush said that gays should be marched with "dignity" and shot with "respect" that it would be A-OH-KAY for these Uncle Toms. :mad:

[ February 24, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]

gamecock: thanks for the article. Right on Dems!!! I look forward very much to hearing what Kerry has to say about this. Go getem John!

Well, Gamecock, I'll take you up on your offer and admit that I'll probably vote for Bush in November. Why? I don't give a damn about marriage. I could not possibly care less. Really and truly. I can think of about 285 things more important to me. Because if there's anything that can be said with any certainty, it's that yours truly won't be getting married, legally or illegally, to anyone, at any time, ever. Finis!

To put it another way, if one day the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage (possible, I think), my life won't change. If the FMA passes (unlikely, I think), my life won't change. No matter how it turns out, nothing will change for me. I have absolutely no stake in this issue.

Of course, those who do feel that they have a lot at stake here can vote for whomever they want and write checks to whomever they want. I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of their position. Just leave me out of it.

And as for the Democrats: well, I certainly won't be voting for Sen. Thurston Howell IV, a/k/a John "Don't You Know Who I Am?" Kerry. A cheap shot, yes, but I enjoyed it.

Here's your bucket, Gamecock. Have a nice heave.

Outstanding post, GatorJamie -- as usual!....the sad part is that it's ABSOLUTELY TRUE! frown

[ February 24, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Amidst the hysteria... while I don't doubt W's exploitation of homophobia for a second, or his intention to curb or ban civil unions (frankly, I think it's way too late for that), here's an alternative view on the specific legal nature of marriage:


Gay Marriage is a Heterosexual Trap (Randolfe Wicker, GayToday)


A personal story with legal ramifications that hellbent wedlock crusaders should consider...

[ February 24, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Incredibly naive. No matter how the amendment and the marriage issue turns out, the guy you are voting for is using YOU as a political wedge issue. By saying that, you're admitting your willing to be his whipping boy to scare rednecks and bigots into voting against the gays! If he were to win a second term and get into a bind again, what's stopping him from trying for another constitutional amendment - maybe to outlaw and punish people who engage in gay sex - in order to further distract the populace and rally the bigoted base? After all, you didn't have the guts to stand up for yourself in 2004 when he used you as a cheap political pawn.

This reminds me of those domestic abuse victims who refuse to leave the relationship "because he really loves me". I reiterate we shouldn't waste our time any futher with these misguided people in our own ranks and move on to actually fighting Bush and the amendment.

Jerzoid, did you actually take the time to READ the wording of this proposed Constitutional amendment?....you apparently may be shocked to learn that it's NOT just about "MARRIAGE"....the amendment that Bush and his bigoted cronies would like to see adopted also ELIMINATES DOZENS OF RIGHTS that we already enjoy in many states and jurisdictions, including those pertaining to financial/tax/estate benefits, family/adoption/visitation rights, discriminatory practices in the workplace (or have you never been fired because you're gay -- unlike many of us, including yours truly), inability to purchase or even rent a home solely due to your sexual orientation -- and that's barely touching the surface....or are all of those rights and basic benefits as a human being completely unimportant to you as well, Jerzoid? :confused:

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the CONTENT of this amendment that you "don't give a damn about" before you make another post claiming how insignificant and irrelevant it is when it will DRAMATICALLY alter the lives of millions of law-abiding citizens!

[ February 24, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

So just because you don't want to get married, that means the rest of us can't? It's not like we want to marry you.

Not necessarily. wink

Hey, as long as you and your buds have your circuit parties, your chemicals, your Prada, your Abercrombie, and all of the rest of your stuff, nothing else matters, right?

Grow up.

[quote]Jerzoid:
[QUOTE]If the FMA passes (unlikely, I think), my life won't change. No matter how it turns out, nothing will change for me. I have absolutely no stake in this issue.
[/quote]And the chances that any of us would have ever been charged with sodomy means that Lawrence v. Texas is irrelevant to gay men and lesbians, right? The fact that you personally choose not to marry (if ever given the option) does nothing to alleviate the problems from amending the constitution as proposed.

Constitutional issues have ramifications well beyond what initally appears on the surface. Choose not to marry if you wish, but allow yourself to be the one to make that decision, not the right-wingers pushing this amendment.

Maybe not YOU, but a lot of Americans DO. To say because it doesn't affect YOU personally so to Hell with everyone else is extremely shortsighted thinking.

I don't think I'll ever get married either, but the idea of even a separate but equal situation with civil unions is one I find distasteful, unless straight couples are also made to obtain a civil union from the governments. I also find the idea that rights WILL be taken away or expressly DENIED to people for committing the unpardonable sin of being honest with themselves to be abhorrently in violation of the very principles this country was founded upon.

Using the Constitution to, as the Romer v. Evans decision put it, "render a class of persons a stranger to its laws" (which Colorado did with Amendment 2)? To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, "that ain't the Constitution they wrote for me."

I think the focus on what the FMA will mean for marriage misses the point: permanent second class citizenship. Any "permanent" bachelors out there should remember the legal impact of anti-sodomy laws.

Anti-sodomy laws did NOT JUST prohibit sodomy. They were the used as the legal basis to deny adoption rights, equal protection rights in the workplace and a host of the rights and benefits. The FMA goes further than marriage and would ban the "legal incidents" thereof.

The FMA will be used to prohibit gays from being considered an identifiable class worthy of the protection of the constitution.

Hulaboy, you should check out the Family Research Council on-line chat on the Washington Post. They're at the forefront of the amendment drive: Some choice bits:

Respect? Dignity? These guys are full of shit, and you stop hemming and hawing about anything they would promote.

The ACLU will send an e-mail, a fax, or a paper letter to your representative and to both of your senators. Enter your zip code, write a note (or use their form letter), and they do the rest.

Shameful Post of the Year:

How. f**king. Selfish. You're not gonna die in Iraq, so who cares about the war. You have a good job, so who cares about the economy. You don't know anyone who died on 9/11, so who cares about the investigation. Your parents are dead and you're never growing old, so who cares about Medicare. You're a guy, so who cares about abortion rights.

Congratulations. You care only about yourself. You're exactly the kind of American the world hates.

Well said Feverdog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And for anyone who wants to try the "Single Issue" voter label, remember this ammendment threatens our Health care benefits, our adoption benefits, our potentitial employment, and many other issues that will fall as a result of this ammendment.

It is being reported that the Re-puke-licans are hoping to have the fist votes on this in October. Hoping it will fail the first round, and garner more votes for GOP Legistlators. It's a sickening political game!!!!

[ February 24, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Let me understand:

In '96, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which "defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Did the GLBT community rise up in revolt? No, they worked for his re-election. After all, he was a Democrat. And despite the enactment of DOMA with broad bi-partisan support, the world didn't come to an end.

Now, in 2004, a Republican president says he favors putting pretty much that same provision into the constitution, and we're told this is the first step toward being marched off to the gas chambers. Sorry, but the logic escapes me.

As for those who say they can't understand how any GLBT person could still support Bush, well, if same-sex marriage is really that important a principle to you, I can't understand how you could support Kerry, since he has consistently gone on record as opposing gay marriage. I guess it's just fine from your point of view that he shamelessly opposes giving us "equal rights," so long as he stops short of supporting the constitutuional amendment. Again, the logic escapes me.

How can you not see you're the ones being used as pawns by the Democratic Party and its soon-to-be standard-bearer: they want the gay vote, but they are still not prepared to come out in support of gay marriage.

Why isn't everybody rushing out today to support Ralph Nader, the only candidate who's actually said he does support gay marriage? Surely, it's not because of political expediency.

Dont fret HulaBoy - weve noticed that logic escapes you. Say hello to Mary Cheney for all of us, carry on and keep "working from within!"

Just my opinion but I think President Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act is COMPLETELY different from President Bush supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. The Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and President Bush is trying to undermine its value by endorsing an amendment that would essentially make discrimination against gay people legal in the U.S.

I definitely see a little bit of a difference...

Thank you SheaBoy for the ACLU link. I sent it off to my senators and representative with a brief personal introduction to the provided text, which I think was well written. I think one of the strongest arugments in this whole matter is that this is such a perversion of the Constitution. I think that even people who are homophobic may agree with that.

HulaBoy, if you truly believe that our outrage over the passage of DOMA in 1996 (which John Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote AGAINST, I might add) should be comparable to the incompetent bigot who is in office now attempting to AMEND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION solely for the purpose of denying us our basic rights (which extend far beyond "gay marriage", you might be interested to know) then your argument is even weaker than I thought -- and that's saying A LOT!....you sure are making the "job" of those of us who are "debating" you awfully easy, HulaBoy....as the Bush-Cheney team said THEMSELVES during their 2000 campaign, this decision should be left up to the States, not in the form of a federal amendment that would DENY rights to a group of citizens for the first time in the history of our country.

Let's see -- what might be the reason why Shrub has changed his strategy and is choosing to announce this NOW?....hmmm....to quote Bruce Reed, President of the Democratic Leadership Council today, "I guess it's just a coincidence that the President brought this out on the first day of his campaign..it's a sign of how desperate they are"....or as Senate Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD.) accurately pointed out today, Bush's announcement is aimed at diverting attention away from his "abysmal record" and he will prove to be prophetic with his announcement that "George W. Bush and the Republicans will rue the day that they tried to enshrine our celebrated Constitution."

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe added, "Now that it is convenient to his re-election, he is using this amendment as a purely political move to turn the attention away from his failed record as President. Since he can't run on his record of shipping jobs overseas, failing schools, and rising healthcare costs, he has to change the subject. President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us, and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain."

That sure sounds like the actions of a "leader" that our community should embrace, doesn't it?

[ February 24, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

The posterboy for Gay Conservatism finally gets it!

"WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will." (Andrew Sullivan)

_____


What took ya sooo long Andy? :confused: :confused:


.

HulaBoy, I won't deny that political expediency and issues other than gay marriage are very important in my calculations of who I support and who I vote for/work for in a given election. I know it's foolish to get into a "But Clinton did the same thing too!!!" debate with anyone, but...

1) Those who say that Clinton did nothing for GLBT Americans are blind or lying. His executive order outlawing discrimination in the federal workplace and his attempt, before he almost lost his political life over it, to repeal the heinous ban on gays serving in the military, are two important examples of why he was the best president in the 200+ years of the republic for us folk.

2) A constitutional amendment is. not. the. same. thing. as a federal law. The FMA tarnishes the document it would be inserted into. It cannot be overturned by any process other than another constitutional amendment. DOMA, on the other hand, is most likely unconstitutional, which I believe Clinton realized at the time of his signing it. Was it an act of political courage? HELL NO! Did it tarnish Clinton's image with the gay community? HELL YES! But it was also a different time - the last 8 years have been seminal for the same-sex marriage movement - and largely a symbolic act for him. After all, his veto would have certainly been overridden anyway, and his re-election possibly doomed, had he not signed it. Context is key, my friend.

3) Supporting Clinton in 1996 was, in some respect, a lesser of two evils. For me, and many others, a vote for Clinton was as much a vote against the GOP as it was for Bill and the DLC. In our two-party system, with one party's platform a playbook for anti-gay policies and the other party's explicitly calling for equality for us, it was not hard for me to pick a side. Now again, I strongly disagree with Kerry & Edwards and their positions against same-sex marriage. But they are against writing this discrimination into the US Constitution. Frankly, it's enough for me. And to participate in the re-election of Bush, even by abstaining from the election, would be a horrific mistake.

4) Ultimately, the marriage argument will be decided by the courts under DOMA. It was the same with interracial marriage. It was the same with the right of prisoners to marry (a key precedent in which the Supreme Court said that marriage was a "fundamental right"). For the court system to be used to defend the rights of a politically unpopular minority is part of the basis for our constitutional democracy. Bush shows contempt for this idea, but I wish someone would ask him whether he thinks that the Loving v. Virginia case was a case of "activist judges" and should have been left to the majority to decide. His brother and sister-in-law might disagree with that notion.

4) Voting for Nader is the same as abstaining in this election. We have been very lucky that Justice Stevens and Ginsberg have not yet retired. But I have three words for you: Chief. Justice. Scalia.

5) DOMA did not forbid states to allow same-sex marriages (nor could any federal law). FMA does. DOMA did not prevent states from granting "any of the legal incidents" of marriage. FMA will.

6) Accusing gay Democrats of being pawns is inane. "They're both crappy on gay marriage, so what does it matter?" DOMA, banning gays in the military, FMA, support of sodomy laws, banning gay adoption, ALL this shit is coming predominantly from one side of the aisle. Some Democrats are certainly participating in the demonization of the gays. I don't like it.

But now a very clear, very sharp line has been drawn. Are you for the FMA or against it? Everything else is secondary. Are you willing to place bias against gay and lesbian relationships into the founding document of this nation? If you are, then you are an ass****. If you are not, then we'll talk. And now ANY gay or lesbian American who supports Bush - any American PERIOD who supports this man - can go f**k himself. Or herself.

Those words from Andrew Sullivan are the best that I have read today in response to W's speech -- thanks for the post, IronJohn....make no mistake about it -- "WAR IS DECLARED!" and I, for one, have no intention of backing down from this fight....bravo, Andy!

DOMA can still be struck down by the courts....An ammendment is essentially FINAL! And would take decades to overturn if ever, it's certainly not the same thing as DOMA!!!

Patrick Guerriero is going to be on Paula Zahn on CNN tonight, 8 pm Eastern. He's also supposed to be interviewed tomorrow morning by Bill Hemmer on CNN's American Morning.

AMEN, JAKE!!....as I stated earlier, our community needs to be united NOW more than ever and I have absolutely no empathy or patience for ANY gay or lesbian who is still trying to somehow justify supporting a "leader" who wants to relegate them to being second-class citizens....I place these Uncle Tom's (as GatorJamie accurately described them) in the same category as all the right-wing fundamentalists who would prefer that we all quietly go back into the closet -- f**k THEM ALL!! :mad: .....the fight is on!

I'm more convinced than ever, though, that although W's words today are being met with glee by the staunch right-wingers (who were going to vote for him anyway, come hell or high water) they will ultimately alienate MANY moderates and undecided's which will prove to be his downfall and will only serve to make the incompetent bigot's outster on January 20, 2005 all the more enjoyable!....what a day of celebration that will be -- and it's less than 335 days away!

To update the poll on the main page of CNN.com, our lead is widening....with nearly 240,000 votes cast, 57% are now OPPOSED to FMA while 43% support it.

Let's hope this is a sign of good things to come and I would be willing to bet that when the latest ABC/Gallup poll is released within the next 24-48 hours the support for this discriminatory amendment will have declined from last months results....even though Bill O'Reilly will, no doubt, try to SPIN the numbers to reflect "overwhelming" support for FMA -- "fair and balanced"? ; "no-spin zone"?

[ February 24, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

That's right. Besides, there's plenty of precedent for this. Google for "David Mixner".

Enjoy this gratuitous link to a review of David Mixner's book by my gay Libertarian cousin.

Warner could surprise you.

Was just watching ABC World News Tonight. This was the elead story. Its a sure bet that even if this does pass, and thats a big if, it will be years down the road. And, and its a big and, it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress to have this pass. This will not be that easy. Their ABC Poll did show that a small majority of Americans are against gay marriage, but its like a 50-50 split when it comes down to making an amendment. I too thank you for the ACLU link. I have sent faxes to my 3 Representatives.

Andrew Sullivan can go f**k himself. ***. What a tragic waste that Oxbridge education was. Sorry, I find nothing to admire about a shill for BushCo. for the last three years suddenly seeing the light. WE. TOLD. YOU. SO. you f**king pillock. His crocodile tears are digusting.
Signorele rips in to him and Drudge: Drudge is just a bottom feeder whose 15 minutes are up and Sullivan is simply an ass****, taking cash from someone who wants him dead. Drudge? Sullivan? f**k 'em.

This is not a rhetorical question, but I can't think of ONE thing concrete that right-wing/conservative queers have done to help the GLBT cause. They're either flat-out opposed or cautioning "Oh, don't go too fast, you'll piss off THEM". Can anyone here come up with some good things that GLBT right-wingers/conservatives/Republicans have done for GLBT's at large? I suspect it would be in things like the family law area.

OK, I'm officially eating crow here. I can't believe Bush made such a BAD decision. He could have gained a lot more by supporting us, or at least staying neutral. I feel like he has done some good things the last four years, but he has definetly lost my vote. I can't stand Kerry though, I'm just hoping John Edwards can somehow pull this thing out.

Sorry guys, left wing liberal here who is thrilled that Andrew Sullivan is taking this stand. We need all the help we can get, right-wing, left-wing, Ralph Nader, whatever. We HAVE to show that all gays and lesbians, no matter what your political stripe, will stand together to FIGHT this battle. I usually can't stand Sullivan, but his op-ed piece in Time last week on this issue was absolutely beautiful. We need MIB, TomFord, RazorbackTx and bobby to come together on this one, we even need the LCR to attack from within. One senator or congressman swayed by the LCR from within may defeat this horrible attempt to discriminate against us all. We need to quit pointing fingers at each other and point them at the President, and more important at all our legislators.

I have already emailed Senator Warner, Allen in Va. is no hope. Warner is about as independent as a southern republican senator can be. Also, what about Olympia Snow? Any other repub senators that we may hope for?

Prohibition only took 14 years. That's less than a decade and a half.

Bballrob: The GOP Senators you have the best chance of getting on board are -- Chafee (RI), Snowe and Collins (ME), Gordon Smith in Oregon, McCain, and maybe even Fitzgerald in Illinois since he's not running for re-election. Warner's independent streak also makes him a possibility. One other Senator that might move to the NAY side would be Ben Nighthorse-Campell in Colorado who could vote against FMA on the argument that "Are Native Americans next?"

You also have the possibility of some "States rights" Conservative Senators being very uneasy with the thought of amending the Constitution. I would put Voinovich, Lugar, and Hagel there.

The other side, as I may have mentioned in this thread, is that about 14 Democrats would vote yes on this Amendment. Lots in the South.

Campbell here in Colorado has indicated in the past he wouldn't support it, but I'm not sure I trust him a whole lot. Back when he was a Democrat he was a very vocal opponent of Amendment 2, but since becoming a Republican, he's really backed off of supporting gay rights.

I believe Hagel has said he wouldn't support it.

Just saw Gavin Newsome on CNN's Larry King (re-airs midnight Eastern, 9 Pacific). Totally impressive. Really stood up to the homophobes they had on. Actor Chad Allen was also terrific.

On a conference call earlier this evening with the Log Cabin leadership, Patrick Guerriero reported that Olympia Snowe made a statement this afternoon disavowing the President's views on this issue, due at least in part, to the efforts of Log Cabin.

BTW, I don't always agree with Patrick, but I thought he did a superb job on Paula Zahn tonight debating a rep from the Family Research Council.

Are you willing to take that chance? Hoping it will be simillar. I'm not!

A bit of what I said in my letter: