<a href="mailto:vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20Re%3A%20David%20Horowitz%20%5BA%20gift%20to%20Ed%5D%20Was%3A%20A%20sad%20dayin%0A%09IDAHO&In-Reply-To=" title="[Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad dayin IDAHO"></a>While many of you have been and continue to be slip sliding over the marbles that Gary has been rolling toward us, I've adeptly been keeping my eye on the substance of his posts. Gary's position regarding same sex marriage is clarified below. In short, he's against legalizing same sex marriage but not against equal rights for same sex couples. Ultimately, this scenario may may be the best compromise as it has the potential to make everyone equally dissatisfied.<br><br>This way same sex couples can have all the same legal rights afforded to married couples and at the same time, the hard core conservatives who love marriage so much that they often marry, divorce, and remarry many times in some cases (Rush
Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Michael Savage, Laura Schlessinger, and many others come to mind) can claim that they have protected the sanctity of marriage.<br><br>-Scott<br> <i><br>Thu May 18 18:55:18 PDT 2006, g. crabtree wrote:<br></i><pre>The problems I was referring to were once we reached the<br>polygamy stage. If the matter ended at same sex union I<br>would probably be OK with it (as much as I can be in light<br>of my general objections to any state involvement), but I<br>see no difference between (and equal validity for) the<br>arguments for either form of non-traditional union and that<br>way lies trouble. Sorry I was unclear. Please don't<br>misunderstand my position. I do not hold gay folk in any<br>kind of contempt. The precious few that I know (in person<br>at least) are pleasant people for whom I wish only the best.<br>I simply don't believe that this issue would result in<br>anything good for our country and no benefits for the gay<br>community that can't be
achieved by other means.<br><br>gc</pre>