Pharyngula

Posted by: Nemo | June 17, 2008 12:10 AM

Similar one in Baltimore...

http://foxbaltimore.com/newsroom/poll/qod_form.shtml

You have to give your email address and do a captcha to vote, but you can include comments.

Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 12:16 AM

Y 41.46%
N 57.31%
NS 1.23%

Posted by: Gramomster | June 17, 2008 12:18 AM

Went there, did that. Always down for a poll. Heading over to Baltimore now...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 17, 2008 12:25 AM

Yes: 48.70%
No: 50.25%
Not Sure: 1.05%

Posted by: divalent | June 17, 2008 12:26 AM

you don't have to give the baltimore poll anything to vote, but you do have to type in the key displayed on the screen.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 17, 2008 12:27 AM

Californians should request the creation of a licence-plate with 'The Same-Sex Marriage State' on it, perhaps with the silhouette of two men (or two women) on it.

Posted by: Kagato | June 17, 2008 12:32 AM

Ugh. I'd stay out of the comments section on the Fox site. Some of the opinions and attitudes in there range from bewildering to disgusting.

Posted by: Wowbagger | June 17, 2008 12:34 AM

bad jim, #10, wrote:

The general understanding has been that the state will embrace sodomy tomorrow

That evokes a very interesting visual...

Posted by: Ubiquitous Che | June 17, 2008 12:41 AM

Godless Bastards: Mobilize.

:D

Yes is now leading at 55.45% against no at 43.67% and the fence-sitters at a slim 0.88%

Posted by: Doug Alder | June 17, 2008 12:48 AM

Yes 56.87%
No 42.31%
Not Sure 0.82%
as of 9:47pm PDT

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | June 17, 2008 12:56 AM

Yes 58.97%
No 40.14%
NS 0.89%

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | June 17, 2008 1:02 AM

And for that Maryland poll:
63.63% Yes
36.36% No

Posted by: felix | June 17, 2008 1:04 AM

My wet dream for the day: all of these crashable polls turn into US school board elections.

Posted by: lytefoot | June 17, 2008 1:06 AM

Heh, poll crashing is all in good fun!

As an aside, ever been to Colorado Springs? It seems (or seemed, when I was there a decade ago) to be evenly divided between the people who are there for Ted Haggard's church, and the homosexuals who are there to annoy the first group of people. Both groups believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms. I'm amazed that there hasn't been open war in the streets.

Posted by: Nathan | June 17, 2008 1:13 AM

As a Californian, I have to say no. This whole allowing gay marriage in California has been a great stimulus to our economy. All the gays in the US are flocking to California and we are happy to feed and shelter you.

In all seriousness though, go gay marriage. You shouldn't have to fly across the country to spend your life with the person you love.

Posted by: Fedaykin | June 17, 2008 1:19 AM

Remember, Colorado tried to make it illegal for gays to even seek anti-discrimination claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Posted by: Slamguy | June 17, 2008 1:25 AM

"You shouldn't have to fly across the country to spend your life with the person you love."

I don't see why you have to get married at all to spend your life with the person you love.

i live in Colorado Springs. Nice city, and I don't really notice the evangelical types that much. Now and then I'll read in the newspaper an editorial from the local freaks at Focus on the Family or some other "pro-family" organization, usually with "research" or "study" in their title. All in all, a nice place to live.

Posted by: kwandongbrian | June 17, 2008 1:38 AM

Voted yes, but also noted on the top of the page that they will put to death a knight. How nobility has fallen. I wonder how Sir Mario was knighted in the first place.

Posted by: LordJiro | June 17, 2008 1:43 AM

#35: Well, he HAS saved the Mushroom Kingdom a lot, it's about time he got something for...Oh, not that Mario.

Posted by: Susan Silberstein | June 17, 2008 1:55 AM

"Yes" ahead now by just over 71%.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 17, 2008 2:02 AM

Note the story, "Child Prostitution Suspected to Increase During DNC":

From the headline, the reporter goes on about how the sex trade increases during political events. Why then is the DNC being blamed in the title?

Well, it's being held in Denver this year, and it is MyFox Colorado. But further on, the article notes that "Los Angeles police say prostitution jumped there in 2000 when it held the DNC."

Wow. Those Dems sure are dirty. But what's this? The very last paragraph says "It also turns out that prostitution is non-partisan. According to reports, former sex workers say business is actually better at the Republican convention."

Ah, well. Reports say that the sex trade increases during both conventions, but even more so at Republican conventions, so it makes perfect sense to title the article "Child Prostitution Suspected to Increase During DNC."

I wonder what headline Fox'll use when it covers the same issue at the RNC?

Oh, I know. "RNC Stimulates Local Economy, Biggest Gains Made by Female Small Business Owners."

Posted by: Flamethorn | June 17, 2008 2:10 AM

Yes
72.08%
No
27.19%
Not Sure
0.73%

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 17, 2008 2:29 AM

Tomorrow is my anniversary; and I will be glad to share it with hundreds/thousands of people who are finally being allowed to marry.

Posted by: tinyfrog | June 17, 2008 2:40 AM

A few years ago, the issue of "civil unions" for gay people was on the ballot here in Colorado. It lost - but the final tally was something like 47% pro and 53% con. Very close.

Posted by: foxfire | June 17, 2008 3:32 AM

Way cool that gay people finally have the same rights as hets

What I don't understand is why this is an issue

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 17, 2008 3:49 AM

"The general understanding has been that the state will embrace sodomy tomorrow"
"That evokes a very interesting visual..."

Especially since it has been spooning with Nevada since the 1860's at least.

"All of you do realize that these internet polls are completely meaningless and do not in anyway represent the true distribution of opinions."

I voted to make certain people shit their pants. That's enough for me.

Posted by: HS | June 17, 2008 3:59 AM

Hell yes. After all, I'm looking at UC Boulder for my PhD, and I wanna be able to marry my man! (Me, er, being a man myself).

:)

Posted by: Greymalkin | June 17, 2008 4:06 AM

Well... there goes another poll. Always nice to tip over these type of polls :-)

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 17, 2008 4:40 AM

but we should remember that there are godless people who aren't Christian but nevertheless oppose gay marriage -Scaurus

But no true atheist is a bigot!

BTW, as a socialistic foreigner, I always enjoy interfering with US internal affairs by crashing a poll!

Posted by: Nomad | June 17, 2008 4:52 AM

Scaurus: It's because in general opposition to homosexuality is strictly religious in origin. Either that, or it's related to a kind of fear and subsequent denial of one's own homosexual desires, such a person lashes out at what he most fears about himself. Those two factors often work together, though, as has been seen in the scandals involving republican political leaders or megachurch leaders.

When you see people protesting at gay rights marches, you don't see people with signs that say "I don't believe in God, but I STILL don't want you to have the same rights that I do!". You see biblical quotes, or signs informing them that they're all going to Hell.

It is a hot button topic used by religious leaders to rally their forces behind some good old fashioned bigotry. It's like the bumper stickers say, "who would Jesus hate?".

Whatever your non theistic reason to oppose it, you are in the minority. That is why the focus is on the religious basis for this sort of thing.

Posted by: craig | June 17, 2008 5:06 AM

"Reading the comments I get the feeling that many here are not opposing Christianity, but conservatism. "

Hey, I don't discriminate. I oppose fear-based bigotry regardless of what label you put on it.

I do appreciate, however, your attempts to reinforce conservatism's image as being bigoted. That's a public relations campaign I can get behind fully.

Posted by: Kate | June 17, 2008 5:53 AM

@anaglyph (#59)

Your gay friends are *annoyed* by the fact that laws are changing in favour of ensuring that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation is treated fairly and that no one be excluded from marriage or marital benefits ensured by law based on their sexual orientation?

I find that very difficult to believe. Very, very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that I'd like to invite your gay friends to respond here themselves and tell us poor, ignorant folks just what it is they find soooo annoying about gay marriage.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 6:39 AM

Our Mayor Gavin Newsome married a couple today who had been together for 50 years. It's a great day here in San Francisco and for our State.

Not just together for over 50 years, but two of the founders of the first openly lesbian organization in the United States, the Daughters of Bilitis.

More weddings so that the trolls' head will melt!

Posted by: Scaurus | June 17, 2008 4:05 AM

And it's nice to see Kenny has a bigoted friend in the atheist camp.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 6:47 AM

Oh, yeah:

HAPPY EQUALITY CALIFORNIANS!

Posted by: Alcari | June 17, 2008 6:57 AM

Tom p.
Do you confidence in polls under any other circimstances?

Kate.
I think what anaglyph means is that his friends are annoyed that people are even making a problem out of gay marriage, when it shouldn't even be questioned that every should have equal rights.

Posted by: Elf Eye | June 17, 2008 7:03 AM

Tuesday, 7 am:

Colorado: 83 % Yes
Maryland: 80 % Yes

Posted by: Moridin | June 17, 2008 7:12 AM

I think that, following Dennett's attempt to make the memes of religious less destructive, that one aims at modernizing religion. Incorporating gay marrige into American religion is a start.

Posted by: NickG | June 17, 2008 7:24 AM

Now currently 83% yes, 16% no. Apparently the bit about conservatives being able to mobilize better is a myth. Either that or they don't stay up late enough at night. ;)

I was in the room when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon got married several hours ago and it was really beautiful. (I work at the Lyon-Martin clinic and several of us were there.)

My stoic partner (who will in a few hours after I get off work legally husband if we can get into the court-house today) was tearing up. Gavin Newsom kept smiling and shruging when he came to parts of the ceremony where he asked them if they promised to be faithful to each other and was supposed to do the lecture about the seriousness of marriage. Um... I think we can assume yes, they get that.

When we left city hall to go to the reception, there was this small area of whacknuts with their anti-gay signs behind police barricades (probably to protect them) but they were literally drowned out by the cheers. Kinda like that poll. ;)

Posted by: Scaurus | June 17, 2008 7:36 AM

@Nomad
'It's because in general opposition to homosexuality is strictly religious in origin. Either that, or it's related to a kind of fear and subsequent denial of one's own homosexual desires, such a person lashes out at what he most fears about himself.'

I neither oppose nor fear homosexuality. Homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. It is just that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, its nature being that it brings together two 'opposites' and allows them to form a family. Theoretically, homosexuals can form a family by adopting children, but they (as a couple) can never give a child the upbringing a 'normal' couple can give.

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | June 17, 2008 7:41 AM

Currently 84.48%YES/15.05%NO

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 17, 2008 7:43 AM

Come on MAJeff, Scaurus knows the truth about homosexuality, don't try to confuse him/her with mere factual data!

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | June 17, 2008 7:49 AM

NickG said:

My stoic partner (who will in a few hours after I get off work legally husband if we can get into the court-house today) was tearing up.

Congratulations and every happiness in your future wedded lives to you both.

Scaurus:

What MAJeff said - if you're going to try and weasel out of your homophobic bigotry by appealing to some vague sociological "normality" (and what is so great about normal anyway?) at least try and make sure that your appeals match the facts.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 7:55 AM

Come on MAJeff, Scaurus knows the truth about homosexuality, don't try to confuse him/her with mere factual data!

I know. I really do need to get used to being deficient and without social value.

Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 7:57 AM

but we should remember that there are godless people who aren't Christian but nevertheless oppose gay marriage (myself being one of them.)

But what about the godless people who are Christian? How does that confused constituency stand on the issue?

Posted by: NickG | June 17, 2008 8:00 AM

Scaurus @81: "its nature being that it brings together two 'opposites' and allows them to form a family."

He's a computer geek, my palm and laptop function because he's my tech support. He likes movies with subtitles, I like comedy/action. He rides a motorcycle and I think helmets should be used in cars. He thinks raw jalepenos are a side dish, I find TacoBell's medium to be intolerable. But more importantly than being 'opposites', we love each other. That's what makes a marriage.

And we don't have a child of our own. However, a friend's teen-aged son who was flunking school (straight F's and expelled) stole my partner's bike last year and crashed it into a car. Now the boy lives our same sex home (actually us two and my partner's parents who live with us). We did this because his mom and stepdad literally couldn't handle him but my partner does better. He's now passing most of his classes (in a more rigorous school.) The juvenile judge who is supervising his probation (for GTA of my partner's bike) told my partner she wished she could clone him.

That is of course an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is 'not data', but then the ASR citation for better data is above.

Love makes a marriage, and giving a crap about a kid makes a parent.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 8:02 AM

Love makes a marriage, and giving a crap about a kid makes a parent.

Imagine, it's the content and not the form of the relationships that actually matters!

Posted by: Carlie | June 17, 2008 8:07 AM

But what about the godless people who are Christian? How does that confused constituency stand on the issue?

We like gay marriage, thanks for asking. :)

Posted by: Vic | June 17, 2008 8:23 AM

Doing my bit to help. Yes is up 86/13

Posted by: Claudia | June 17, 2008 8:31 AM

What's the godless equivalent of "Amen, brotha!"? Because I'm so feeling what NickG had to say in #89...

Posted by: OptimusShr | June 17, 2008 9:13 AM

Yes is up to 87% now.

Posted by: TurboCramb | June 17, 2008 9:19 AM

BEST DESIGNED POLL EVAR!

I just voted ten times.

Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | June 17, 2008 9:43 AM

I find it baffling that Scaurus claims he's not opposed to homosexuality but does believe it to be abnormal. Could you provide some clarification about that, sir? And what is this business about marriage being solely for the purpose of producing children?
Scaurus may claim he's an atheist, but he certainly doesn't sound like one. Still, I suppose it's a big world, so there must be room for bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, and generally stupid atheists, even if they're a minority.

Posted by: Interrobang | June 17, 2008 10:19 AM

I can understand being gay and being anti-marriage. I'm more or less straight and anti-marriage. I personally don't think the state has any business sanctioning interpersonal relations like that, and I intensely dislike that marriage originated as a patriarchal means of property exchange enacted on women's bodies. Yeah, that sort of bugs me.

On the other hand, considering that civil marriage is not going away any time soon and that at least in the US, there is no other way of securing for yourself the ~1000 or so legal rights that pertain to it, I'm all for it. Segregationist separate-and-unequal arrangements lead to things like this. That's what this is really about. Not "children," not "families," not the romantic claptrap we've put around marriage -- it's about property rights, inheritance, establishing legal next of kin, and making sure that Auntie Ellie can go visit Auntie Bea in the hospital, even over their family's objections, and automatic powers-of-attorney, and all that good stuff. In other words, for strictly legal reasons, let's have equal civil marriage for all consenting adults who want it...

(I think Scarus' "opposites" argument is a disguised claim that "the pieces don't fit," but oh yes they do.)

Posted by: CrypticLife | June 17, 2008 10:32 AM

Christopher,

I think you're putting too much of a value judgment on "abnormal". I could easily see how an atheist could believe it to be abnormal: it's certainly atypical, and it's unclear what, if any, adaptive value it may have.

Many psychological disorders, in fact, are defined in a very sketchy manner. The attentional problems of ADD, for example, are defined by how much they interfere with one's life. How much they interfere with one's life, of course, is determined by how much others expect one to be focused and obedient.

Though actually, Saurus never says homosexuality is abnormal. What he says is actually worse, that a homosexual couple cannot give a 'normal' upbringing to a child. This puts a high value on whatever 'normal' is, ignoring the high incidence of poor parenting. My children are half-Japanese, half-Caucasian American. They've spent significant amounts of time in both places. They are atheistic (at least the oldest is), all of which are "abnormal". He implies that anything "abnormal" is also "inferior" -- this is unwarranted.

Posted by: Parris Hughes | June 17, 2008 10:52 AM

Well, problem solved. My job here is done.

Posted by: Badjuggler | June 17, 2008 11:13 AM

I think Scaurus is just trying to Scarus.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | June 17, 2008 11:53 AM

Congrats to NickG & everyone else typing the knot... I wish all of you the very best.

Re: Scaurus, and his objection to homosexual marriage - I think he maybe saw a pee pee once and it scared him. Certainly he's manifesting some angst. Maybe he should see someone?

Posted by: Toby | June 17, 2008 12:37 PM

Thanks for tilting this one. I voted on it last night here in Colorado, and was a little dismayed by the negative numbers. Thanks for putting it the other way!

Posted by: JimNorth | June 17, 2008 1:05 PM

Just voted yes.

Crashing polls like these is important because people look at them and invariably choose the winning side - even if they oppose the outcome. It has something to do with mob mentality or majority-rules type of thing; caveat: I am not a pzychologist. I think we are doing "good" by presenting the correct views to the mainstream public; making our position visible and viable. "Let my sheeple grow."

Posted by: baz | June 17, 2008 1:26 PM

"All of you do realize that these internet polls are completely meaningless and do not in anyway represent the true distribution of opinions."

I wouldn't go so far as to say "completely meaningless". Surely some people who are against gay marriage will look at the results and think, "Hold on, I didn't realise I was in such a minority!" Many people don't know how inaccurate these polls are. Appearances do matter, whether we like it or not.

And (if you are clever enough to spot the spelling difference) yes, I am not a US citizen... so of course I voted! 90% yes on both about now.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 1:51 PM

NickG,

Thanks for the pictures.

Have a great wedding!

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 17, 2008 2:20 PM

caveat: I am not a pzychologist.

:-D

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 17, 2008 2:30 PM

Thanks Jeff! It looks like it will have to be later this week. BF remembered a court date with the kid this am (ironically enough) so probably Friday. Its sooooooo tempting to go to Bakersfield. ;)

Whenever it is, just be happy.

That's what struck me so much when it happened here in MA, the happiness. I've never been to a place like Cambridge City Hall was the night of May 16 turning over into the morning of May 17. (Cambridge opened at 12:01 to be the first city in the Commonwealth to accept Notices of Intent to Marry.) Ten thousand people on the lawn, having a party. Sure, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits were there, but they were ignored; everyone was having too good a time. I've never been in a space like that before, and probably never will be again. But, it was simply amazing. So much joy.

Congratulations California. Have a good time....then kick some right-wing ass.

Posted by: Quiet Desperation | June 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Here in Canada gay marriage has been legal for a number of years (length of time varies from province to province). You can also be openly gay in the military and get married to your partner by an army Chaplin.

Wait...

Canada has an army?

(google)

Oh, here they are!

http://www.sdsoldiers.com/DSC0378.JPG

Hee hee. I tease Canada.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | June 17, 2008 4:13 PM

Holy shit, the Maryland poll is showing:
100% Yes
0% No

And the Colorado poll is showing:
Yes 89.64%
No 9.91%
NS 0.45%
Total votes: 5021

Posted by: -R | June 17, 2008 5:11 PM

Looks like the page is "temporarily unavailable." Overload, or foul play?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 17, 2008 6:57 PM

The Maryland one is down to 68.18 % yes vs 31.81 % no!

The Colorado one has also declined, but only to 89.43 % yes and 10.09 % no, but given the 5348 total votes (compare earlier totals above), that's not surprising.

Posted by: shane | June 17, 2008 9:01 PM

It's not just the gays that can't get married in a catholic church. No Church wedding for impotent man.
Personally I can't understand wanting the sanction of such a bigoted organisation anyway. Would anyone here want a church wedding - gay or straight? I'm assuming the hard-core atheists like my good self would rather *insert something distasteful here* before stepping into any church. But what about the semi-spiritual among you?

Posted by: Crow | June 17, 2008 9:29 PM

Certainly being gay is 'abnormal'. So is being left-handed. So is being born with a handicap, or red hair, or a birthmark. The fact that something is not the norm, not the same as the majority of the population, means -- that it's abnormal.

But it in and of itself 'not the norm' does NOT mean that it is either good or bad, or that it's justified to discriminate against people who have the trait, or that the people who have the trait are 'probably evil' (as those having red hair and those being lefthanded used to be considered).

The idea that somehow just being part of the norm also means healthier or more functional is not justified in the face of the extreme dysfunctional behavior obvious in many considered 'normal'.

Posted by: Gramomster | June 17, 2008 9:50 PM

In sociological terms, not-normal, or deviant, means just that - not the norm for whatever group you are a part of! Whether that is your friends (if you hang out with a bunch of smokers, but are a runner who doesn't smoke, you just think they're fun folks) you are deviant, ie not normal. In my family, I'm completely abnormal, deviant in the extreme. Why? I have a college degree, am in grad school, teach at a university, have stayed married for 20 years... all things that 'normal' society would deem normal, right? But not where I come from. Deviant deviant deviant.

In other news, when I got married in San Francisco in 1988, we got married in Golden Gate Park, on Hippie Hill. My hubby wore jeans, a tie-dye, tails and a top hat. I was in a Guatemalan skirt and India cotton top. Flowers in my hair. Married by a guy named Father Free-man of the One Mind Temple of St. John Coltraine. The best man broke about 6 laws and a few local codes by driving me to the base of the tree on his motorcycle. No effing 'churches' for me, thankyouverymuch.

My mother's reaction to all this? "Oh, I'm so happy you're being soooooo traditional!"

Normal for my type, man. Normal for my type.

Heartfelt congratulations to all those who can marry the person they love, openly and proudly! It's about damn time!

Love long, and prosper

Posted by: Roy | June 18, 2008 12:49 AM

There is a poll on The Modesto Bee website asking if you approve of same sex marriages. Can you crash that one too? The yes's are only up by 4 votes. Help widen the gap.

Here is the link:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/331329.html

Posted by: Cocopuffs | June 18, 2008 4:31 PM

This is my first post, even though I have been thoroughly entertained by many a comment for months.
I am posting to ask a favor that is not totally off-topic. You see, I have friends and family members who still believe that homosexuality could not possibly be a natural /genetic/biological(what have you) phenomenon. Can anyone lead me to some really good scientific research on the subject? I'm not lazy, I'll do the research myself, just need a point in the right direction. Thanks!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 19, 2008 10:45 AM

I am posting to ask a favor that is not totally off-topic. You see, I have friends and family members who still believe that homosexuality could not possibly be a natural /genetic/biological(what have you) phenomenon. Can anyone lead me to some really good scientific research on the subject? I'm not lazy, I'll do the research myself, just need a point in the right direction. Thanks!

I'm one of those "radicals" but I honestly don't give two shits if it's genetic/biological or whatever. A gay life should be available as a choice for anyone, as should a "straight" one. However, they should be freely chosen, and it's still more difficult to live a gay one, and straight one's are still favored by the state and the rest of society.

Who cares if it's a choice? It's one that should be freely available to anyone.

Posted by: Cocopuffs | June 20, 2008 10:52 AM

Oh. . . and thanks sdg, for making me feel a bit welcome as a first-time comment poster and actually trying to help me out.

Posted by: Cocopuffs | June 20, 2008 2:33 PM

Thanks, Kseniya, your input has been useful, and I appreciate it.

Again, I am with you and MAJeff. I too agree that one should be able to choose who they love and wish to marry,live with, etc. And I agree with you that there are so many complications when it comes to the "origin" of homosexuality in different people. The (annoying) issue is, I find myself in the company (family, mostly) of those who want scientific proof of some sort before they're willing to admit homosexuals deserve equal rights. Of course I don't agree with this nonsense.

These family members I speak of seem hopeless when it comes to changing their minds and attitudes. They are fundamental christians who see the world through a biblical lens and will not see homosexuality as anything other than an abomination, unnatural, disgusting, etc.

Besides the scientific curiosity that I possess, I suppose I am looking for a good counter-argument to their bigotry. They do not know my opinion of the subject as yet. They are the type that can get pretty nasty and vile about such things and I'm just not ready to go there. I'm young (25) and just realizing my lack of christian beliefs. I hope this timidity will lift eventually!

Posted by: Cocopuffs | June 20, 2008 4:07 PM

Indeed, Kseniya!

It depresses me that I may not be around when it is absolutely commonplace. But I know that if I have the courage to speak up and speak out on the issue of gay rights, I will being doing my small part for the future of homosexuals in this country. Even closer to home, one of my nieces or nephews or some other younger relation may be gay. I would be doing it so they won't have to struggle as the generations before them have.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 20, 2008 11:21 PM

Thanks for the link, sdg.