Democratic gay-marriage pool update: Tim Johnson “evolves,” endorses SSM

posted at 3:21 pm on April 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

And then there were three.

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson today announced that he has decided to support marriage equality legislation. Johnson’s statement is below.

“After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation. This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.”

So rote has this sort of thing become that staffers can’t even be bothered to look for synonyms for “evolve” anymore. The DNC might as well print up a form letter — “if you’ve ‘evolved,’ check this box” — and let Democratic holdouts do it that way. In Johnson’s case, the switch is both significant and not: He’s retiring next year so he had zero personally to lose, but his son Brendan’s a contender to replace him and will now have to manage this minor headache. Safe to disagree with dad? It’d be weird for a pol from a younger generation to be less “evolved” than his old man is. Either way, it’s amazing that not even South Dakota politics is immune from this issue anymore.

Only three anti-SSM Dems left in the caucus now: Manchin, Pryor, and Landrieu. Pryor’s been tap-dancing around the subject, assuring liberals that all his gay friends tell him that their orientation isn’t a choice but insisting nonetheless that he’s against SSM. (After a local news outlet reported that he was undecided, he moved quickly to correct them. That’s what a tough reelection campaign in Arkansas will do.) With Johnson now out of the pool, media scrutiny of his position will be even more intense. I’ll bet he flips by the end of summer. As for Landrieu, are we sure she still qualifies as opposed to gay marriage? Watch the short but revealing local-news clip below. Sounds to me like she’s saying yep, she’s “evolved”™ too but that she’s compelled to vote against SSM in order to reflect the view of a majority of Louisianans. Does that principle apply to things like ObamaCare, I wonder, or is it a special rule she’s created purely to avoid a political headache on this issue? And even if it is, why have her views evolved, exactly? If she’s concluded that it’s discriminatory as a matter of equal protection to forbid gays from marrying each other but endorses it anyway in the name of majority rule, i.e. protecting her own career, then arguably she’s in violation of her oath of office. Someone needs to ask a follow-up question, if only for the comic value.

KNOE 8 News; KNOE-TV; KNOE.com |


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

When you distort a sacred bond, and make it’s meaning a joke subject to whatever some leftist hack judge wants it to mean..

Then you have stolen something from us..

This is nonsense.

Nothing has been stolen from you! No one can change your view that marriage is a sacred bond (especially when officiated by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-thru chapel).

You just don’t get to impose your subjective opinion on others.

We will be married still..

Then mind your own business!

gays will simply mimic that, but it will not be marriage. Not even close..

Then you may want to stay away from those states and DC where SSM is legal. I’m not sure your heart could take it.

*snip*

and the flood gates you open will be used to justify bigamy,.. any number of multiples marriages.. because my simplistic friend..

“No your rights are not being infringed upon just because you don’t like (three way marriage). The marriage of two (three or more people) of the same sex, (or not) (a valid concept.. ) has no effect on anyone else’s marriage.”

only to make it a bad joke as an institution..

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

The slippery slope, no matter how scary it looks, is not justification for treating some members of our society as second-class citizens.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM

The slippery slope, no matter how scary it looks, is not justification for treating some members of our society as second-class citizens.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM

So that means apparently that you support incestuous marriage and polyamorous marriage since those unions are treated as second class as well as defined by you..

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Yeah, I think it’s about how members of our society are treated.
When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.
chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Why do gays need to be married to be happy with each other.

Dongemaharu on April 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

that may be true, but that does not mean they never will, because the long game is denying any negative consequences isn’t it?.. as you have..

You may have no ill will yourself, I grant you that, but the entire movement?

A Bush or Romney DOJ would not allow that without saying.. an Obama Holder DOJ?.. after he has no need to worry about another election?

are you THAT sure?

we aren’t.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

When half the country is in favor of something it’s pretty much a given that some who are in favor of it will have ulterior, nefarious motives. Yes, I concede that within the SSM camp there are some anti-religious bigots and they may try to bring a court case. But based on the freedoms and protections churches have enjoyed under the First Amendment I think the preponderance of the evidence is they will be secure. What you’re asking me to believe is that people who would rush into a church and harass innocent parishioners would be so cool and smart that they would keep their powder dry for a future court case after SSM is legalized nationwide. I think they’re too hotheaded and militant to keep their powder dry that long.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Odd that you would mention Massachusetts. As I recall that is where Catholic Social Service’s Adoption agency was forced to close for refusing to place children with homosexual couples contrary to their religious tenets. But then again, they weren’t forced to do anything they didn’t want to do they were merely put out of business. A fine distinction that.

Mason on April 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM

They weren’t forced to close. They decided they wouldn’t (couldn’t) comply with the law and shut down their operation.

Their choice. Their decision.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I’m sick of being treated as a second class citizen! As a man, I demand the use of the women’s restroom!

Dongemaharu on April 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM

When half the country is in favor of something it’s pretty much a given that some who are in favor of it will have ulterior, nefarious motives. Yes, I concede that within the SSM camp there are some anti-religious bigots and they may try to bring a court case. But based on the freedoms and protections churches have enjoyed under the First Amendment I think the preponderance of the evidence is they will be secure. What you’re asking me to believe is that people who would rush into a church and harass innocent parishioners would be so cool and smart that they would keep their powder dry for a future court case after SSM is legalized nationwide. I think they’re too hotheaded and militant to keep their powder dry that long.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

No, what I don’t think you understand classic Marxism. The church is in direct competition with the state. The state seeks to destroy the Church. It won’t just be the gheys using gay marriage as a bludgeon against the church. Gay marriage will just be one more weapon.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Odd that you would mention Massachusetts. As I recall that is where Catholic Social Service’s Adoption agency was forced to close for refusing to place children with homosexual couples contrary to their religious tenets. But then again, they weren’t forced to do anything they didn’t want to do they were merely put out of business. A fine distinction that.

Mason on April 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM

We’re talking about marriage performed in a church, not adoption services a church runs on the side. In that case I believe the church went closed down rather than go to court. In Illinois where the church did go to court it was ruled that the church was free to discriminate so long as they gave up a tax credit or subsidy or something they were receiving from the state and they opted to close rather than live without the government subsidy.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Tell that to the people of CT, MA, NY, et al, in which people of the same sex ARE getting perfectly legal and valid marriages.

It’s been nearly 10 years in MA, and the doomsayers who predicted the collape of society are wrong.

Keep barking. Maybe the caravan will turn around because you’re unhappy that it’s leaving.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

any that means what to someone in a semi-rural county in Ohio?

The deepest of blue enclaves, where real conservatives moved out long ago, tells us nothing more that they the ultra liberals living there are fine with it. And really, you think once they have the UnHoly Grail, they’ll simply be content to bask in their empty victory?

Hardly.. They already are making rumbles about suing individual churches, already lining up allies from other fringe relationship groups.. already telling us, “why don’t you just submit, marriage is a joke anyway”.. Divorces prove that they say.. not to us,.

Divorce merely proves humans are flawed, not that a Holy Bond is. People can always be redeemed, but how do you put right a thousands years old institution, because a mere 1 and a half percent demand it?.. most gays admit apathy about it.. it’s damned few people who are making this demand.

It’s another media DNC orchestrated circus to divide the public while they steal… with most of the yes vote saying yes just so the SSM people will shut up.. except, they never do.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:59 PM

They weren’t forced to close. They decided they wouldn’t (couldn’t) comply with the law and shut down their operation.

Their choice. Their decision.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM

You sound ridiculous.. Here I will make an equivalent. Gay can marry; they just can’t and won’t comply with the state regulations…

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:00 PM

You sound ridiculous.. Here I will make an equivalent. Gay can marry; they just can’t and won’t comply with the state regulations…

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:00 PM

False analogy.

Gays used the political system to change the laws in several states to allow them to marry. That’s what this whole thing is about.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 6:07 PM

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM

How does all this lead to churches being compelled to perform SSM ceremonies? You make a lot of points about child-rearing but that’s separate from marriage.

Out of curiosity, melle, because I don’t recall hearing your thoughts on this before but is homosexuality a choice or is it just the way some people through no fault or action or choice of their own?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

In Illinois where the church did go to court it was ruled that the church was free to discriminate so long as they gave up a tax credit or subsidy or something they were receiving from the state and they opted to close rather than live without the government subsidy.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM

In other words, a penalty was to be imposed despite a ‘win’. That doesn’t sound like a win to me at all. That’s sort of like saying to someone who won a lawsuit against a drunk driver that he (the victim) can have a million dollar award but he’s not allowed to have any items from the drunk driver worth over $5000 each.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 6:12 PM

No, what I don’t think you understand classic Marxism. The church is in direct competition with the state. The state seeks to destroy the Church. It won’t just be the gheys using gay marriage as a bludgeon against the church. Gay marriage will just be one more weapon.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I’ve read Marx because I believe in the old adage one should known thine enemy. As far as weapons the state has to destroy the church gay marriage is a pretty weak one.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The slippery slope, no matter how scary it looks, is not justification for treating some members of our society as second-class citizens.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM

but they aren’t being treated that way.. haven’t for a couple of decades now. They score much higher on the median income scale, they are way over represented in lawyers, the government class, entertainment businesses.. They have zero reason to be whining about second class.. They are the new pampered class, catered too by the Hollywood and media crowd, while the plain old fashioned lower income working class still gets shafted by everyone else.

Gays however.. why, you have to give them whatever they want.. or else.

and no, I do not recognize legal gay marriage, it doesn’t matter that some states do, they don’t speak for us. To us, it will never be legitimate, no more legitimate than marrying three or six people will be. so deal with it.. and, we do have children, so the views on traditional marriage isn’t going away.

What do you care anyway?

I don’t run a state, don’t change friends based on political views, don’t care about who you sleep with, it’s the words, Holy Marriage that is my only issue with SSM. I haven’t stoned anyone or asked that they be, haven’t rejected friends because they turned out to be gay. Hate the sin, love the sinner, isn’t an idle boast to me. But it’s no worse to me than having six girl friends in one year, does my approval mean that much? To me, it’s not that big an issue that gays are here, only that marriage to me, is very holy.. maybe I’d not care that much, if I had married young, but at 37, after waiting so long for the one true love of my life..

I damn well do resent the distortion of the institution.

make up your own word and exclude straight people, I don’t care.. this isn’t something I will bend on, ever.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM

In other words, a penalty was to be imposed despite a ‘win’. That doesn’t sound like a win to me at all. That’s sort of like saying to someone who won a lawsuit against a drunk driver that he (the victim) can have a million dollar award but he’s not allowed to have any items from the drunk driver worth over $5000 each.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 6:12 PM

No, it simply means that if the church wants to suck off the government teat, it has to follow the government’s rules.

cam2 on April 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM

No, it simply means that if the church wants to suck off the government teat, it has to follow the government’s rules.

cam2 on April 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM

While you’re totally correct, the case highlights that no one is truly ‘free’ to discriminate. Private individuals have been successfully sued for refusing to rent apartments to homosexual couples on personal religious grounds, though they weren’t receiving government benefits for their property.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 6:35 PM

” When you distort a sacred bond, and make it’s meaning a joke subject to whatever some leftist hack judge wants it to mean..

Then you have stolen something from us..”

This is nonsense.

Nothing has been stolen from you! No one can change your view that marriage is a sacred bond (especially when officiated by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-thru chapel).

Just because some people beclown themselves, that makes it all ok?.. I was married in an actual Chapel, by an actual Pastor,.. to a woman whom I could never be worthy of..

You just don’t get to impose your subjective opinion on others.

“We will be married still..”

Then mind your own business!

That was exactly what we on the traditional marriage side WERE DOING .. you picked this fight, we didn’t. You couldn’t mind YOUR own damn business, You had to take what is not yours to have.

“gays will simply mimic that, but it will not be marriage. Not even close..”

Then you may want to stay away from those states and DC where SSM is legal. I’m not sure your heart could take it.

Nope, don’t live anywhere near those states.. not that it matters, still reject that bastardization of marriage.

and there is no heart disease in my family.. so you’ll have to worry about something else taking me early. I’d worry about your own heart first, when your strident mocking of the slippery slope turns out to have been completely wrong..

you really believe the other fringe groups won’t use your SCOTUS win, if it comes, to piggy back all their causes?

You cannot be that naive.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM

How does all this lead to churches being compelled to perform SSM ceremonies? You make a lot of points about child-rearing but that’s separate from marriage.

In order to deny a SS couple a church marriage; a clergy would have to rely on the ” church’s teachings” on homosexuality. If those teachings have been deemed hateful and harmful to children; the clergy then has no basis to deny the SS couple marrying. It will be the pressure of hate speech laws and tax status that will eventually break the church. Like I said it will not be as simple as a SS couple going to sue the church to marry them.

Out of curiosity, melle, because I don’t recall hearing your thoughts on this before but is homosexuality a choice or is it just the way some people through no fault or action or choice of their own?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter to me either way. I think we all have sexual hang ups etc. that are our own. That being said, I don’t think every sexual relationship needs to be state recognized. If you are asking me if I think sexual orientation is as simple as genetics or choice; I don’t think it is. I think it is a variance of predisposition and enviromental factors. I mean people that like the BDSM lifestyle aren’t born that way, but something makes them predispose to it and experiences have made that their thing. It is as hard to understand as the rape victim who likes to relive rape fantasies. Sexuality is very complex especially because it is so individualized.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Out of curiosity, melle, because I don’t recall hearing your thoughts on this before but is homosexuality a choice or is it just the way some people through no fault or action or choice of their own?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

If I may, please..

To be clear, I don’t think anyone “chooses” which gender they are attracted to, ever. I also do not believe it’s genetics. That is way too lazy and trite an answer. One which has come under fire from actual experts, they have never found a “gay” gene.

Which leaves nurture, or environment, from what I’ve read, your sexual template is set very very young, and little subject to change. What exactly determines how you develop, I doubt anyone has a clue. So there is no sin in that, as it’s something to me determined while in a state of innocence. I know that teen gays have a high suicide rate, but that is I think more from the depression of finding themselves attracted to the same gender, something not predictable. They have the internal conflict of not being what they expected, fearing the parents will reject them, even when they don’t.. For those young people compassion is the only answer.

I know what the old testament says, yet.. The God I believe in, is the Father of Jesus, and not a cruel God. I don’t believe gays are damned, even if some, some Christians do. I think it’s simply a facet of your entire life. We are ALL sinners, ALL imperfect, so I do not judge gay people on that aspect of who they are. God will in his own time, as he will judge the rest as well.

I believe a good compassionate life counts for more than one piece of your life.

I do believe there are gays in Heaven.

so that isn’t my issue. The SSM debate has merely triggered in me, a terrible need to defend what I see as the most valuable thing in my life besides my wife, and our children, the bond which we swore before man and God.

I don’t harbor bitterness to the libertarian view, though I disagree. The liberal view offends me on many levels. It’s bitter hatred of Christians, it’s raging condescension, it’s arrogance..

I know you didn’t ask me, but,.. You have been entirely polite to me in this forum, and I’m glad we can talk even though we don’t agree on this. It’s not harsh words that convince, and I think you’d agree.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 7:07 PM

In order to deny a SS couple a church marriage; a clergy would have to rely on the ” church’s teachings” on homosexuality. If those teachings have been deemed hateful and harmful to children; the clergy then has no basis to deny the SS couple marrying. It will be the pressure of hate speech laws and tax status that will eventually break the church. Like I said it will not be as simple as a SS couple going to sue the church to marry them.

If a church’s interpretation of the Bible was that it forbade interracial relationships then what does that mean for the children of such a marriage? The church could proclaim that child is a walking abomination. Even if there aren’t any interracial children in the church it would still be teaching the parishioners there was something wrong with those children and thus foster bullying, exclusion and discrimination. Hateful and harmful to children, no? All of this applied to interracial marriage as well and the churches were never compelled in that instance.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 7:46 PM

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I brought that up because I was touching off something else melle had said but I do have to say that is an extremely thoughtful and decent position.

While I do firmly occupy the libertarian position on this issue, the second someone does try to force a church to do anything they don’t want to I’m backing the church to the bitter end. I’m not oblivious to the fact some liberals use the SSM issue as a stalking horse against the church and it’s sad for me to see but I retain my faith that the Constitution will protect churches as it has in the past.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Just for the sake of the pool if Allah’s still running it with pickings getting this slim, although Manchin is tempting because he’s got so long before re-election I’m sticking with McCain as the next Democrat to evolve on SSM.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Thank you for that, I was pretty sure your position was Libertarian, as I had agreed before with a great many of your posts. I appreciate too, that you will support us if our fears are born out.

In the past I was pretty angry at some of the Libertarian wing of the party.. but the truth is, we need you. Not just your votes, but to remind us of the core of what we all believe in. Reagan himself said we had something to learn from your view, sometimes we need reminding of that. Call it, a wake up call from the last election. We need each other if we’re ever going to win the country back.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I brought that up because I was touching off something else melle had said but I do have to say that is an extremely thoughtful and decent position.
alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Just wondering what I actually said and what answer you were thinking you were thought you were going to get from me. I think I have pretty vocal about the fact that I am not religious and I don’t find anything wrong with homosexuality or gays want to find happiness. I disagree solely on a policy issue and not a personal one.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Democrats evolving? The only thing newsworthy here is that some relatively normal democrats are in fact barking-mad in spite of appearances.

Presumably when the flatulent wind of gays-not-getting-married starts to blow the other way, these bottom-feeders will continue to evolve or even metamorphose to suit the current.

virgo on April 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Assuming the power to redefine marriage and the family is at least as tyrannical as the gun grabbers are. It would disrupt our society in ways most people haven’t dreamed of, or are in denial about.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Your position bizarrely miscontrues what is happening. Gay people using their own freedom are having weddings, calling their relationships marriages, and asking that the government respect their choices. It’s about freedom, not tyrrany. The issue is that you are bigot who doesn’t respect gay people’s choices.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

What is bizarre is how you try to take what is actually happening and stand it on its head.

Marriage is and always has been a bond between the two sexes. Marriage is not some program the government dreamed up. It is, by its very nature, the joining of a man and a woman and the formation of a family.

It is also at the very core of what makes us human.

The government has no right to tell anyone that marriage now includes two men or two women.

The fascists here are the ones attempting to use the government to force everyone else to accept these unnatural relationships as marriages. There is no reason why anybody should be bound to accept a commitment ceremony between Partner A and Partner B as a marriage.

The activists for SSM are radicals and extremists demanding the rest of society accept a new definition of marriage.

YOU are the one pushing for big government to wade in to a social issue and tell the rest of us what is and is not a valid marriage.

But like a determined liar, you keep trying to accuse others of the wrong that you yourself are doing.

Let me refresh your memory. There are two sexes. Period.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Just wondering what I actually said and what answer you were thinking you were thought you were going to get from me. I think I have pretty vocal about the fact that I am not religious and I don’t find anything wrong with homosexuality or gays want to find happiness. I disagree solely on a policy issue and not a personal one.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM

It was the reference to conversion therapy. If one believes sexual orientation is a choice (a notion I reject) then I understand the thought process behind sending child to conversion. If one believes sexual orientation is not a matter of choice then the idea of trying to make someone change something about themselves that they can’t change is something where I could see some potential for abuse to take place, even if it’s not intentional.

This isn’t a perfect analogy but if a parent for whatever reason believed their child possessed and wanted an exorcism performed is something where I could imagine a state having grounds to step in and protect a child’s well-being despite a parent’s religious objections. If your sexual orientation can’t really be changed and homosexuality can’t be “cured” then what’s the point of trying to cure it? If all that’s really happening is people are being shamed into denial then is that healthy? I’m trying not to lump everyone and everything together here and say every therapy group or session like that is necessarily abusive but I see a lot of potential for it to take place.

alchemist19 on April 9, 2013 at 1:42 AM

We’re talking about marriage performed in a church, not adoption services a church runs on the side. In that case I believe the church went closed down rather than go to court. In Illinois where the church did go to court it was ruled that the church was free to discriminate so long as they gave up a tax credit or subsidy or something they were receiving from the state and they opted to close rather than live without the government subsidy.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM

“Adoption services a church runs on the side”

News flash: The federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering in the free exercise of religion. If the government can unilaterally decide what “free exercise” of religion is permitted, then there is no prohibition.

You would constrain church ministries to only include church services within the four walls of a church building, then pretend that you respect religious freedom.

Churches proselytize, churches teach, churches perform charity and provide services. The government has no right to limit the ability of a church to preach, whether inside or outside of the church building, nor to control what they are allowed to preach. It also has no right to limit the ability of a church to teach, whether it is teaching children or adults. A Christian school is every bit as much a church ministry as the Sunday morning service. Churches giving food to the needy is every bit as much a church ministry as Bible School.

And if a church has a ministry to promote marriage and families, whether by providing counseling to potential couples, or by helping married couples adopt children, or by helping pregnant teenagers give up their children for adoption, that IS the exercise of their religion. Suing them because they don’t place children with homosexual couples is discrimination against them because they practice their faith.

You can try to dismiss it all you want, but it’s just denial of a reality you want to pretend doesn’t exist. Christian religions are right now being told to accept the values of secular humanism.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 9, 2013 at 1:48 AM

The slippery slope, no matter how scary it looks, is not justification for treating some members of our society as second-class citizens.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM

.
(everyone else responded to this; ‘ guess it’s my turn)

The fact that homosexuality is ‘abnormal’, is “self-evident”.
(whole cultures of people who have never heard of the Bible, recognize this)

Sodomy … IS … a ‘lower than the lowest class’ behavior/activity/practice.

Consenting adults who purport it DISCREETLY (behind closed doors), are not a problem, to society at large.

Demanding society accept and recognize it as ‘an alternate state of normal’, IS a problem ….. and no amount of campaigning, indoctrination, or “re-education” is going to change that.
.
Refusing to accept and recognize “same sex marriage”, does NOT constitute “treating some gay members of our society as second-class citizens.”

listens2glenn on April 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2