But I fail to see your, and others’ hang-up with homosexual marriage. I don’t see how it changes anything you care about; hetero marriage and homo marriage is not some zero-sum tug-o-war for the monolithic “institution of marriage”. Why is it impossible for homosexual marriage to exist in parallel to the traditional version you are free to preserve; does one crowd the other out? Is it crucial that the state validate one kind of union above others–social engineering?

In your rebuttal, you took a certain understanding of good and bad, in terms of sexuality, for granted. Why does this issue rise above many others to stoke your biblical ire? Where does the threat to society come from? Where does the visceral discomfort come from, because let’s face it, there are other clear and present blasphemes that don’t elicit such a strong reaction.

Perhaps the smearing of an entire religion just because most of it’s adherents aren’t interested in seeing marriage go in a biologically unsustainable direction?

What I find pathetic is you pretending to believe the Orthodox Jewish injunction against putting the “O” in God, while coming out in favor of an idea so crazy and anti-heterosexual that even the Ancient Greeks didn’t think of it.

Pat Buchanan has pointed out many times that California is no go territory for the GOP in presidential elections, his point vis a vis the ballot proposition measure’s victory was that:

If even California, one of the most overly permissive hell holes in the history of the world, a place that will go down soon, with no help to come from the bankrupt USFG…

…If even California turned against the radical agenda of the raging homosexual lobby, what does that tell you about the rest of the Country?

If Republicans sell out on gay marriage just because they’re afraid of being called bigots, they’re too weak to be entrusted with national security.

So many are sick of the Bible being used to justify what would clearly be bigotry in every sense if not for a Biblical premise. The Christian Conservatives don’t have much standing when they cherry-pick the Holy Word in support of points of view they’d agree with regardless. They should get off their high horse and start stoning adulterers if they want to be respected as real traditionalists. Otherwise, they’re just positioning their subjective discomfort with open homosexuality behind the shield of religiosity–right-wing political correctness.

Incidentally, liberal Christians, liberation theologians and the social gospel advocates are just as guilty of this shameful incoherence and inconsistency; shameful, because its accompanied by a sickening self-righteousness that attempts to use G-D as a rhetorical bludgeon to achieve political (anti-social) objectives.

Ironically, Christians feeling threatened by homosexual activism betrays a lack of faith in their own ability to inculcate their understanding of Christian Morals in their children. It implies a fear that G-D’s Word is somehow fragile enough to be shaken by a bunch of gays who want to have a marriage ceremony in addition to equal protection under the law.

Pathetic.

Rooted? Eh, not so much. “Rooted” suggests that their beliefs stem from the Bible, in which case you would find the many injunctions of, say, Leviticus more widely observed amongst the Christians of California, Arizona, and Florida.

Shellfish? Pork? A camel through the eye of a needle?

In fact what one finds is that Biblical sanction is sought, ex post facto, to legitimize whatever visceral revulsion of the moment, and the remainder of the word of God disregarded and discarded without further thought.

And if that isn’t the essence of bigotry, then what is?

Who knew that this race would be fought mainly in the internet – mainly by a biased press?

They chose, the people followed.