Gay Marriage Foes Work to Reverse Ruling

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer BOSTON - With gays and lesbians now legally wed in Massachusetts, foes of gay marriage vowed Tuesday to campaign hard, in state and national elections, for candidates willing to reverse the tide.

Uhhh...why do you want to reverse it? California does it (ok, maybe that wasn't a good example).

I guess I really just don't get it. Ok, I know what the definition of marriage is. But why is that "set in stone?" Why can't gay couples get married? Why can't they have the right to insurance and all of the other benefits that heterosexual couples have? And that brings up another sore spot for me. Why can't they be considered good candiates as parents, through adoption or other means? Society tends to think of homosexuals as perverts. If they do that behind closed doors, what will they do to the children? Oh for God's sake people! Wake up and smell the bacon. They are human's just like us, capable of love, albeit of the opposite sex. Ok, I don't get it, but I don't begrudge them the right to love someone of the same sex. There are "bad" people out there everywhere, be it a homosexual or heterosexual.

"Homosexual couples are not the enemy," said Raymond Flynn, a former Boston mayor and foe of gay marriage. "The enemy is the legislators who ignored and betrayed the people of Massachusetts by not giving them an opportunity to express their point of view."

Yeah right Mr. Flynn. Why not take a look around you? I would imagine that a large majority of the folks don't really have a problem with it, but probably don't want to admit it. Most likely, it upsets your masculinity, you moron. If you look at the politicians who are fighting the hardest against it, you'll find the one's who are coming up for re-election. Whooo..did I tell you your nose was a lovely shade of brown?

Legislators wrangled for months after the state Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision last November, ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. Eventually, in a compromise that dismayed activists on each side, lawmakers took the first step toward letting voters decide in 2006 if they want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriages and allow gay couples enter civil unions.

Actually, I think letting the people vote is a good thing. It might suprise alot of people.

"President Bush needs to do more than make a public statement," Staver said. "He should appoint a pro-marriage advocate to his staff whose sole job is to push forward a constitutional amendment ... to educate, motivate and direct the strategy."

No shit Sherlock. Let's get on with it.

Mood: Chip on shoulder
Background Noise: Kidz Bop