"The government ..has a vested interest?" The only interest is the protection of children, period. Why not deny any privilege until a child is born? Based on the vested interest argument, government should subsidize heterosexual dating. Given all the rights conjured up by liberals, I am troubled that conservatives think special rights should accrue to heterosexual couples who marry. Why not give special rights to heterosexual couples who have children but don't marry?

And as a former homophobe who was aggressive in speaking out against what I perceived was the evil of homosexuality, it is with considerable sadness that I discovered so many people I admired were closet homosexuals. That I contributed to making their lives more miserable is tough to live with. It is because of interacting positively with people who took the chance to pronounce their homosexuality that I changed my very ignorant, hateful views.

AMEN! Conservatives were/are rightly critical of the hedonistic lifestyle that resulted in the rapid spread of AIDS and the number of children growing up without the influence of two loving parents. I would think it a vast improvement in most neighborhoods if many gay couples committed to each other moved into my neighborhood. It is the many unnecessary and unjustified priveleges government bestows on married people that makes gay marriage an issue.

AMEN!

It is very likely Republicans' position on homosexuality will cost them this important election. Those who think people choose to be gay are as clueless as those who think the way to strengthen the family in the U.S. is to reward out-of-wedlock births with welfare payments. Given what gay people have had to endure and to a lesser extent still endure, it is disappointing so many otherwise intelligent people are unwilling to seriously ponder whether any person would truly choose to be gay. The many gay people who are productive loyal Americans don't deserve scorn but instead admiration. It wasn't that long ago that many Americans thought people of different races shouldn't marry. Hopefully homophobia will suffer the same fate.

When I proposed a course on the topic of liberty at the college at which I teach, the assigned readings were criticized by the oversight committee for new courses on the basis of "ideological uniformity." After including readings from leftist sources, the course passed muster with the Thought Police. There are too many ironies in this yet none should surprise any person familiar with the one-ideology-fits-all nature of academia.

Thanks! I honestly thought I was missing some joke! I was searching for someone named "Lebian," etc.

It's is okay to call someone a liar because his position is different than yours--I disagree with Adams on this one--but you are seriously troubled with "big fat poopy faces"? Wow. At least I attempted to make an argument that a women who is raped shouldn't be forced to have the child. I didn't impugn the motive of Professor Adams. And "white trash?" Wow. Good job undermining your own credibility. What, other than a racist attitude could explain the inference that all the supporters must be white? Maybe all black people are supposed to think alike on issues such as abortion?

As a professor at a small liberal arts college, I would like to state that the broad brush used to describe professors is unfair but that would be a lie. I allude to the Thought Police frequently in a course about liberty. I realized my students are, for the most part, unfamiliar with 1984. I enjoy pointing out to my students that politicians name legislation for its intended result, not what they actual end up accomplishing. (Sowell!) Abortion is often described as "health care." Here's a critical thinking question: is the baby's health better or worse after the procedure?

Uncle Same? Is this a typo or an intentional play on words? If the latter, why not include a line about unions arguing for the same solution?