MikeK: "I wouldn't automatically use the word hateful, because there will be many people who vote for this measure that don't have a hateful bone in their bodies. I'd simply say it's an unnecessary tempest in a teapot whipped up for partisan political purposes and it's slightly hypocritical, too. I think a serious threat to the institution of marriage is the large number of bitter heterosexual divorces that happen every day, particularly where kids are involved."
DFO: I wasn't sure which post I would use to address this issue, yours or Sam's. I will vote for the amendment because I believe it's crucial to protect traditional marriage, for all its struggles, as the best way to protect and nurture children. That makes me a bigot in Sam's eyes, I guess -- even though I also support the Gay-Straight Alliance's right to exist along with other clubs at Lake City and Sandpoint high schools. And I oppose discrimination against gays in housing and in the work place. For me, this isn't about hate. It's about a clash of cultures -- traditional religionists and conservatives versus liberal religionists and secularists. The former is supported by 4000 years of Judeo-Christian history and the world's major religions and cultures. The latter compare the gay rights struggle of the last 50 years to the civil rights movement. Both sides parrot information from their team's playbook on the issue. I don't know if we're grown up enough on this blog to discuss this issue intelligently for the next eight months.