In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Dante9 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 4:33 PM
Your definition of marriage has nothing to do with what how Federal Courts have already and the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of marriage as currently defined by some state laws and by DOMA itself. Your opinion of homosexuals is protected by the very same Constitution, despite its bigotry and unevolved denounciations. Any antigay label fits you quite well, Camberbisquit, given the thousands of times you get a big hard-onb over the opportunity to fruitlessly rebut the sane counter-arguments and support for gay rights that are expressed here by people like me who know it is all just a matter of time when editorials like Turek's, and comments like yours, are long just relics of an ugly past.

In yesterday’s column, I listed some of the benefits that natural marriage provides children and society. But some claim that promoting natural marriage exclusively violates the rights of people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s not true. The three P’s will help us see why.

The government has only three options in addressing human behavior. It can prohibit a behavior, it can permit a behavior or it can promote a behavior—the three P’s.

Our laws prohibit sexual relationships such as polygamy, incest and pedophilia. They permit homosexual relationships and non-marital heterosexual relationships. And due to the immense...