Dan Bretta wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:35 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 11:25 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:

>>> On Nov 4, 9:00 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:57 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>>> I'm agnostic on the issue.  I don't get why their fighting toot and
>>>>>>> nail for the "label", provided they're getting rights (tax breaks,
>>>>>>> medical coverage, household recognitions, etc) it shouldn't be a
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> On the other hand, for most (not all) like Maggie Gallagher's marriage
>>>>>>> organization, I'm not buying the "we're just trying to protect
>>>>>>> traditional marriage" meme, more like they just don't like gays and
>>>>>>> would like to marginalize them.  
>>>>>> I don't trust gays who say things like this:
>>>>>> "Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount
>>>>>> Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap
>>>>>> outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping
>>>>>> for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a
>>>>>> personal thing."
>>>>>> .. when everyone knows that marriage has a public dimension, and makes
>>>>>> claims/demands on government, employers, etc.
>>>>> Why are you opposed to it?  Are you opposed to it because of the
>>>>> increased claims on government, employers, etc.?
>>>> Nope. E.g., if it was 1964 in Virginia, i'd be in favor of repealing the
>>>> law against interracial marriage, even though that would result in
>>>> increased claims in those domains.
>>> You didn't answer my first question.
>> So what? I answered the second, far more important part.

> What's keeping you from answering the first question?