Backup to my recent blog on "Different Strokes.....Don Pisenti of Mill Valley, Ca. writes "The debate is not about civil rights; it is an attempt to obtain total public acceptance through the pressure of "political correctness" and ultimately through the force of law.
Jim Smith of Yonkers, N.Y., writes that two photographers from New Mexico were fined by a human rights commission because they declined to photograph a gay wedding. It's not much of a stretch to imagine this tactic used against those who officiate at weddings as well. (It already has) Discrimination lawsuits will continue to be the weapon gay activists use to impose a tyranny of the "minority".
Chris W. Kite of Cornelius, N.C. writes "Government benefits for "marriage" could eventually be available to any two people who claim them. These benefits are not basic rights. We are not invading the bedroom or private ceremonies. The courts should not invade voting booth."
David B. Neslund of Lititz, Pa., writes, "Government marriage benefits are designed to support an institution, the traditional family, which history has shown to be beneficial to society as a whole."
I agree. These comments are taken from the "Letters to the Editor" of today's WSJ.
I also have severe doubts about any mixed sex couple to adopt a kid. Kids are confused enough about all the "stuff' being dumped on them by almost all of the popular medias and even some of their teachers.