If gays have one, as is asserted, then hetero folks must have one too.

If this were to pass, the title alone would be the reason. Most people don’t read the fine print.

I think it’s a poke at the “MO Invasion of Mariage” as well as WA’s very loose initiative process.

Brilliant.

James, you’re what you always feared you were – the kid that everyone laughs at.

We don’t want to give non-procreating heterosexual couples those legal benefits so they can practice and practice and practice…yet never produce babies. That would be unseemly. Same goes for those retirement age couples who think they can get married. No babies, no bennies! Anyways, we need to protect our children from the idea that granny and gramps are doin the nasty.

This is as much about language as it is about the legal purposes of marriage. Conservatives view — with historical support — “marriage” to be a contract between one man and one (sometimes more) woman, and the family as the fundamental building block of civil society. The far Left wants to redefine “marriage” into something it has never been, largely out of (1) their positivist legal ideology; (2) their view of “marriage” as a government-benefits distribution system; and (3) their desire to mainstream perverse sexual behavior.

The fact is, most Conservatives don’t care what homosexuals do in their private lives, so long as they keep them private. But that doesn’t satisfy the far Left, and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda, who desire “acceptance.” But no one is entitled to “acceptance” for their behavioral choices.